FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mvonthemove.com/fcps-engages-with-families-from-region-3-on-school-boundary-review/

12/9/24 Region 3 - Edison, West Potomac, Mount Vernon. 300 attendees. Far different than Reid 's orchestration for Region 5. Note Reid + Dunne sticking in a new program only available for West Potomac pyramid rather than changing boundaries. https://mvonthemove.com/bucknell-elementary-decides-to-add-montessori-program-option-after-all/

Am I reading this right in that both community reps come from Mt. Vernon and one of them no longer has kids in school??? Wowwwwww.

I think it’s appropriate for people without children in the system to take part. We pay taxes too - we should have a say too.

Oh, interesting that there are non parents on this fcps thread.
Agree you should have a say, but the interests may be very skewed.

in what way would it be skewed?

Asking out of genuine curiosity - do you have any links to the school system? Teacher?

The children in my neighborhood attend the schools. My children attended the schools - they are in their upper 20’s. One of my children had an IEP from 2nd to 12th grade and I have done a fair bit of advocacy surrounding their issues and trying to make sure things were better than what he experienced. I like to see how that is going. I am part of this community.

That is wonderful that you are so involved in your community.

However, my concern is that someone who is ten years removed from FCPS probably does not have enough current understanding of the school system to be an effective advocate in a designated parent/caregiver committee role.

For example, I was recently speaking with a very pro rezoning empty nester about rezoning. She had very strong opinions in support about rezoning and lots of information about the district, in particular schools outside her neighborhood, that were not in alignment with fact.

A lot of what this person stated seemed to come from this website or reddit. Several "facts" stated about my kids zoned schools were blatantly false, to the point of being laughable. At least two of these "facts" has been posted here on this site. If this person was hypothetically selected for the committee, they would be pushing for rezoning decisions that affect a lot of kids, as an expert in information that was inaccurate and based of anonymous discussion forums, not real, current FCPS experience.

Having someone who has been out of the FCPS schools for over a decade or more appointed as the allocated parent representative takes away a critical voice from.the community being represented. So much has changed in the schools since covid, which makes an even stronger case that no parent slots should be given to anyone who has not had a kid in the FCPS system since covid.

I appreciate and applaud anyone who volunteered their time on this committee, and do not fault the empty nester who volunteered.

But I am very disappointed if FCPS has given one of the precious parent slots to an empty nester who has no kids involved in FCPS and hasn't had students in a decade or more.

On the note of the article in question, is it possible that the parent rep in question simply did not mention their kid's schools over concerns of doxxing? They are maming a sacrifice of time and privacy to be on the committee. I imagine that they want to keep as much privacy for their families as possible.

So you can have current parents who know next to nothing about any schools outside their pyramid and also have misunderstandings based on reading this forum, FB (the FairFACTS site is full of false claims), or chatter with neighbors. Some just wanted to limit potential BRAC members to current parents to increase their own chances of being selected. They may have more skin in the game, but aren’t necessarily more knowledgeable.

You should not be given a designated parent slot if you are not a parent.

There are separate community spots. You should be eligible for one of those but not for one of the two slots per pyramid that are specifically allocated for parents by Dr. Reid and the school board in multiple emails.

They are designated parent/caregiver/community member slots per pyramid, as illustrated by the Mt. Vernon reps at their regional meeting.

There were supposed to be 2 per pyramid of just parents/caregivers. So 48 reps. The committee is 80. The rest were to be community members, teachers, people on other committees etc. and fairly certain the 32 other members were hand picked by Reid/the school board based on some names that have come out. People who don’t even live in Fairfax county and have not had kids in the system

Nope. It was two reps in each of the 24 pyramids who could be parents, caregivers, or community members. The others are largely staff and past/current members of other FCPS committees.

Email from fcps dated 11/20…. “more than 1600 parents/caregivers applied to participate in the superintendents boundary review advisory committee. 2 parents/caregivers from each of FCPS’s 24 pyramids were invited to join the committee.” Not community members. Parents/caregivers. Community members are not to be part of the 2 per pyramid.

The email continues: other advisory committee members include school based administrators, teachers, operational staff, and representatives from community groups

And from a recent posting: "As mentioned in Dr. Reid’s message to families on Monday evening, the Superintendent’s Boundary Review Advisory Committee met for the first time last Friday. The committee includes two parents/caregivers or community members from each of FCPS’ 24 high school pyramids, school-based and division administrators, teachers, operational staff, and other community representatives."

Sorry if you read too much into one or more of Reid's many missives.

There were several correspondences saying that the two per pyramid were parents and caregivers. This is why no one trusts Reed or the school board. There is no transparency and they just change things as they see fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mvonthemove.com/fcps-engages-with-families-from-region-3-on-school-boundary-review/

12/9/24 Region 3 - Edison, West Potomac, Mount Vernon. 300 attendees. Far different than Reid 's orchestration for Region 5. Note Reid + Dunne sticking in a new program only available for West Potomac pyramid rather than changing boundaries. https://mvonthemove.com/bucknell-elementary-decides-to-add-montessori-program-option-after-all/

Am I reading this right in that both community reps come from Mt. Vernon and one of them no longer has kids in school??? Wowwwwww.

I think it’s appropriate for people without children in the system to take part. We pay taxes too - we should have a say too.

Oh, interesting that there are non parents on this fcps thread.
Agree you should have a say, but the interests may be very skewed.

in what way would it be skewed?

Asking out of genuine curiosity - do you have any links to the school system? Teacher?

The children in my neighborhood attend the schools. My children attended the schools - they are in their upper 20’s. One of my children had an IEP from 2nd to 12th grade and I have done a fair bit of advocacy surrounding their issues and trying to make sure things were better than what he experienced. I like to see how that is going. I am part of this community.

That is wonderful that you are so involved in your community.

However, my concern is that someone who is ten years removed from FCPS probably does not have enough current understanding of the school system to be an effective advocate in a designated parent/caregiver committee role.

For example, I was recently speaking with a very pro rezoning empty nester about rezoning. She had very strong opinions in support about rezoning and lots of information about the district, in particular schools outside her neighborhood, that were not in alignment with fact.

A lot of what this person stated seemed to come from this website or reddit. Several "facts" stated about my kids zoned schools were blatantly false, to the point of being laughable. At least two of these "facts" has been posted here on this site. If this person was hypothetically selected for the committee, they would be pushing for rezoning decisions that affect a lot of kids, as an expert in information that was inaccurate and based of anonymous discussion forums, not real, current FCPS experience.

Having someone who has been out of the FCPS schools for over a decade or more appointed as the allocated parent representative takes away a critical voice from.the community being represented. So much has changed in the schools since covid, which makes an even stronger case that no parent slots should be given to anyone who has not had a kid in the FCPS system since covid.

I appreciate and applaud anyone who volunteered their time on this committee, and do not fault the empty nester who volunteered.

But I am very disappointed if FCPS has given one of the precious parent slots to an empty nester who has no kids involved in FCPS and hasn't had students in a decade or more.

On the note of the article in question, is it possible that the parent rep in question simply did not mention their kid's schools over concerns of doxxing? They are maming a sacrifice of time and privacy to be on the committee. I imagine that they want to keep as much privacy for their families as possible.

So you can have current parents who know next to nothing about any schools outside their pyramid and also have misunderstandings based on reading this forum, FB (the FairFACTS site is full of false claims), or chatter with neighbors. Some just wanted to limit potential BRAC members to current parents to increase their own chances of being selected. They may have more skin in the game, but aren’t necessarily more knowledgeable.

You should not be given a designated parent slot if you are not a parent.

There are separate community spots. You should be eligible for one of those but not for one of the two slots per pyramid that are specifically allocated for parents by Dr. Reid and the school board in multiple emails.

They are designated parent/caregiver/community member slots per pyramid, as illustrated by the Mt. Vernon reps at their regional meeting.

There were supposed to be 2 per pyramid of just parents/caregivers. So 48 reps. The committee is 80. The rest were to be community members, teachers, people on other committees etc. and fairly certain the 32 other members were hand picked by Reid/the school board based on some names that have come out. People who don’t even live in Fairfax county and have not had kids in the system

Nope. It was two reps in each of the 24 pyramids who could be parents, caregivers, or community members. The others are largely staff and past/current members of other FCPS committees.

Email from fcps dated 11/20…. “more than 1600 parents/caregivers applied to participate in the superintendents boundary review advisory committee. 2 parents/caregivers from each of FCPS’s 24 pyramids were invited to join the committee.” Not community members. Parents/caregivers. Community members are not to be part of the 2 per pyramid.

The email continues: other advisory committee members include school based administrators, teachers, operational staff, and representatives from community groups

And from a recent posting: "As mentioned in Dr. Reid’s message to families on Monday evening, the Superintendent’s Boundary Review Advisory Committee met for the first time last Friday. The committee includes two parents/caregivers or community members from each of FCPS’ 24 high school pyramids, school-based and division administrators, teachers, operational staff, and other community representatives."

Sorry if you read too much into one or more of Reid's many missives.

There were several correspondences saying that the two per pyramid were parents and caregivers. This is why no one trusts Reed or the school board. There is no transparency and they just change things as they see fit.

There were also communications stating that people were picked from each of the 25 pyramids, when there are only 24.

Separately, in the past, they also claimed that the new and unnecessary Dunn Loring ES would provide relief to 10 overcrowded elementary schools, when the majority of those 10 schools are not overcrowded and the 10 schools identified at one point don't include one of the schools likely to be overcrowded in the future.

So the communications from FCPS often leave a lot to be desired, but people who are community members were certainly allowed to apply for the pyramid-specific slots on the BRAC and in some cases we know they were selected as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundary Review Advisory Committee meetings should be open to the public. Democracy dies in the darkness.

it would deter volunteers- who wants to be inundated with crazy parent emails and be doxed because they have a different perspective on an issue.

They literally signed up to represent their pyramid. Don’t be dense. And they aren’t going to be doxxed, that’s absurd.

I can see a scenario where parents who live near a particular school would support rezoning kids who live much further away, and the parents in the far-away area doing everything they could to persuade those parents otherwise and, failing that, publicly harassing them.

The real scenario is a neighborhood near the northern boundary vs a neighborhood from the southern boundary--or the east boundary vs the west boundary. This can easily occur in a school that has a compact contiguous boundary. There are schools that could send a neighborhood farther away than they currently go. This is when it gets really, really ugly.

[Anonymous]

Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

Any major updates? Or more of the same? I wasn't able to make it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

Upset parents wanting rezoning? Or against rezoning?

If the vibe was against rezoning, I ber they were caught off guard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

Any major updates? Or more of the same? I wasn't able to make it.

People upset that equity is not defined well and a lot of concerns about timing. Concerns about data too. Parents adamantchanges are not necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

Upset parents wanting rezoning? Or against rezoning?

If the vibe was against rezoning, I ber they were caught off guard.

Parents against rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

Upset parents wanting rezoning? Or against rezoning?

If the vibe was against rezoning, I ber they were caught off guard.

Parents against rezoning.

I’m sure the SB was NOT caught off guard by parents against rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mvonthemove.com/fcps-engages-with-families-from-region-3-on-school-boundary-review/

12/9/24 Region 3 - Edison, West Potomac, Mount Vernon. 300 attendees. Far different than Reid 's orchestration for Region 5. Note Reid + Dunne sticking in a new program only available for West Potomac pyramid rather than changing boundaries. https://mvonthemove.com/bucknell-elementary-decides-to-add-montessori-program-option-after-all/

Am I reading this right in that both community reps come from Mt. Vernon and one of them no longer has kids in school??? Wowwwwww.

I think it’s appropriate for people without children in the system to take part. We pay taxes too - we should have a say too.

Oh, interesting that there are non parents on this fcps thread.
Agree you should have a say, but the interests may be very skewed.

in what way would it be skewed?

Asking out of genuine curiosity - do you have any links to the school system? Teacher?

The children in my neighborhood attend the schools. My children attended the schools - they are in their upper 20’s. One of my children had an IEP from 2nd to 12th grade and I have done a fair bit of advocacy surrounding their issues and trying to make sure things were better than what he experienced. I like to see how that is going. I am part of this community.

That is wonderful that you are so involved in your community.

However, my concern is that someone who is ten years removed from FCPS probably does not have enough current understanding of the school system to be an effective advocate in a designated parent/caregiver committee role.

For example, I was recently speaking with a very pro rezoning empty nester about rezoning. She had very strong opinions in support about rezoning and lots of information about the district, in particular schools outside her neighborhood, that were not in alignment with fact.

A lot of what this person stated seemed to come from this website or reddit. Several "facts" stated about my kids zoned schools were blatantly false, to the point of being laughable. At least two of these "facts" has been posted here on this site. If this person was hypothetically selected for the committee, they would be pushing for rezoning decisions that affect a lot of kids, as an expert in information that was inaccurate and based of anonymous discussion forums, not real, current FCPS experience.

Having someone who has been out of the FCPS schools for over a decade or more appointed as the allocated parent representative takes away a critical voice from.the community being represented. So much has changed in the schools since covid, which makes an even stronger case that no parent slots should be given to anyone who has not had a kid in the FCPS system since covid.

I appreciate and applaud anyone who volunteered their time on this committee, and do not fault the empty nester who volunteered.

But I am very disappointed if FCPS has given one of the precious parent slots to an empty nester who has no kids involved in FCPS and hasn't had students in a decade or more.

On the note of the article in question, is it possible that the parent rep in question simply did not mention their kid's schools over concerns of doxxing? They are maming a sacrifice of time and privacy to be on the committee. I imagine that they want to keep as much privacy for their families as possible.

So you can have current parents who know next to nothing about any schools outside their pyramid and also have misunderstandings based on reading this forum, FB (the FairFACTS site is full of false claims), or chatter with neighbors. Some just wanted to limit potential BRAC members to current parents to increase their own chances of being selected. They may have more skin in the game, but aren’t necessarily more knowledgeable.

You should not be given a designated parent slot if you are not a parent.

There are separate community spots. You should be eligible for one of those but not for one of the two slots per pyramid that are specifically allocated for parents by Dr. Reid and the school board in multiple emails.

They are designated parent/caregiver/community member slots per pyramid, as illustrated by the Mt. Vernon reps at their regional meeting.

There were supposed to be 2 per pyramid of just parents/caregivers. So 48 reps. The committee is 80. The rest were to be community members, teachers, people on other committees etc. and fairly certain the 32 other members were hand picked by Reid/the school board based on some names that have come out. People who don’t even live in Fairfax county and have not had kids in the system

Nope. It was two reps in each of the 24 pyramids who could be parents, caregivers, or community members. The others are largely staff and past/current members of other FCPS committees.

Community members were not listed in the parent/caregiver spots.

Community members were listed in the staff/community spots.

November 20 email: More than 1,600 parents/caregivers applied to participate in the Superintendent's Boundary Review Advisory Committee! Two parents/caregivers from each of FCPS' 24 high school pyramids have been invited to join the committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mvonthemove.com/fcps-engages-with-families-from-region-3-on-school-boundary-review/

12/9/24 Region 3 - Edison, West Potomac, Mount Vernon. 300 attendees. Far different than Reid 's orchestration for Region 5. Note Reid + Dunne sticking in a new program only available for West Potomac pyramid rather than changing boundaries. https://mvonthemove.com/bucknell-elementary-decides-to-add-montessori-program-option-after-all/

Am I reading this right in that both community reps come from Mt. Vernon and one of them no longer has kids in school??? Wowwwwww.

I think it’s appropriate for people without children in the system to take part. We pay taxes too - we should have a say too.

Oh, interesting that there are non parents on this fcps thread.
Agree you should have a say, but the interests may be very skewed.

in what way would it be skewed?

Asking out of genuine curiosity - do you have any links to the school system? Teacher?

The children in my neighborhood attend the schools. My children attended the schools - they are in their upper 20’s. One of my children had an IEP from 2nd to 12th grade and I have done a fair bit of advocacy surrounding their issues and trying to make sure things were better than what he experienced. I like to see how that is going. I am part of this community.

That is wonderful that you are so involved in your community.

However, my concern is that someone who is ten years removed from FCPS probably does not have enough current understanding of the school system to be an effective advocate in a designated parent/caregiver committee role.

For example, I was recently speaking with a very pro rezoning empty nester about rezoning. She had very strong opinions in support about rezoning and lots of information about the district, in particular schools outside her neighborhood, that were not in alignment with fact.

A lot of what this person stated seemed to come from this website or reddit. Several "facts" stated about my kids zoned schools were blatantly false, to the point of being laughable. At least two of these "facts" has been posted here on this site. If this person was hypothetically selected for the committee, they would be pushing for rezoning decisions that affect a lot of kids, as an expert in information that was inaccurate and based of anonymous discussion forums, not real, current FCPS experience.

Having someone who has been out of the FCPS schools for over a decade or more appointed as the allocated parent representative takes away a critical voice from.the community being represented. So much has changed in the schools since covid, which makes an even stronger case that no parent slots should be given to anyone who has not had a kid in the FCPS system since covid.

I appreciate and applaud anyone who volunteered their time on this committee, and do not fault the empty nester who volunteered.

But I am very disappointed if FCPS has given one of the precious parent slots to an empty nester who has no kids involved in FCPS and hasn't had students in a decade or more.

On the note of the article in question, is it possible that the parent rep in question simply did not mention their kid's schools over concerns of doxxing? They are maming a sacrifice of time and privacy to be on the committee. I imagine that they want to keep as much privacy for their families as possible.

So you can have current parents who know next to nothing about any schools outside their pyramid and also have misunderstandings based on reading this forum, FB (the FairFACTS site is full of false claims), or chatter with neighbors. Some just wanted to limit potential BRAC members to current parents to increase their own chances of being selected. They may have more skin in the game, but aren’t necessarily more knowledgeable.

You should not be given a designated parent slot if you are not a parent.

There are separate community spots. You should be eligible for one of those but not for one of the two slots per pyramid that are specifically allocated for parents by Dr. Reid and the school board in multiple emails.

They are designated parent/caregiver/community member slots per pyramid, as illustrated by the Mt. Vernon reps at their regional meeting.

There were supposed to be 2 per pyramid of just parents/caregivers. So 48 reps. The committee is 80. The rest were to be community members, teachers, people on other committees etc. and fairly certain the 32 other members were hand picked by Reid/the school board based on some names that have come out. People who don’t even live in Fairfax county and have not had kids in the system

Nope. It was two reps in each of the 24 pyramids who could be parents, caregivers, or community members. The others are largely staff and past/current members of other FCPS committees.

Community members were not listed in the parent/caregiver spots.

Community members were listed in the staff/community spots.

November 20 email: More than 1,600 parents/caregivers applied to participate in the Superintendent's Boundary Review Advisory Committee! Two parents/caregivers from each of FCPS' 24 high school pyramids have been invited to join the committee.

What she said.

Reid was very clear that the 2 spots/pyramid were for parents/caregivers with kids enrolled in FCPS, not childless community members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

Upset parents wanting rezoning? Or against rezoning?

If the vibe was against rezoning, I ber they were caught off guard.

Parents against rezoning.

I’m sure the SB was NOT caught off guard by parents against rezoning.

Normally, yes.

But this is the pyramid that has schools that the school board is using to justify rezoning. I am sure they did not expect that the Lewis parents would be just as much against the disruptions of rezoning and just as strongly wanting to keep their kids in their neighborhood schools, as all of the other parents at other schools

I am not surprised, but I bet the school board was surprised, along with some of the pro rezoning non parents who post here regularly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

Upset parents wanting rezoning? Or against rezoning?

If the vibe was against rezoning, I ber they were caught off guard.

Parents against rezoning.

I’m sure the SB was NOT caught off guard by parents against rezoning.

Normally, yes.

But this is the pyramid that has schools that the school board is using to justify rezoning. I am sure they did not expect that the Lewis parents would be just as much against the disruptions of rezoning and just as strongly wanting to keep their kids in their neighborhood schools, as all of the other parents at other schools

I am not surprised, but I bet the school board was surprised, along with some of the pro rezoning non parents who post here regularly.

The Mount Vernon HS meeting with lots of Lewis folks was back on Monday, and the parents there were generally supportive of making changes and having saner boundaries than some of the craziness of the current setup.

Tonight's meeting was at Annandale, and the feedback was most uniformly supportive of changes that would allow more equitable access to programming, and specifically access for students WITHIN THEIR PYRAMID. Saying you can technically "access" a program but to do so you have to be bussed over to some other pyramid doesn't count. This seems mainly about local AAP and also the AP/IB split. But overall folks seemed more concerned about this programming issue than the boundary lines, but also understood that one could impact the other.

There was also some incongruent feedback, for example one table emphasized making sure that when they do this that they make purposeful changes that actually have an impact, don't just bow to the fear of "making the fewest people upset about changes". But on the other hand the most common phrase was "minimize disruptions", yet in the same breath many of those same groups were also supportive of some changes, especially pertaining to islands and split feeders. So minimize disruptions =/= no disruptions, it seems... basically, "only disruptions that I personally think are reasonable".

Finally, some requested looking at "more creative" changes than boundary adjustments, and one said that overcrowding wasn't the worst thing, a sense of school community is more important, and different communities want different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mvonthemove.com/fcps-engages-with-families-from-region-3-on-school-boundary-review/

12/9/24 Region 3 - Edison, West Potomac, Mount Vernon. 300 attendees. Far different than Reid 's orchestration for Region 5. Note Reid + Dunne sticking in a new program only available for West Potomac pyramid rather than changing boundaries. https://mvonthemove.com/bucknell-elementary-decides-to-add-montessori-program-option-after-all/

Am I reading this right in that both community reps come from Mt. Vernon and one of them no longer has kids in school??? Wowwwwww.

I think it’s appropriate for people without children in the system to take part. We pay taxes too - we should have a say too.

Oh, interesting that there are non parents on this fcps thread.
Agree you should have a say, but the interests may be very skewed.

in what way would it be skewed?

Asking out of genuine curiosity - do you have any links to the school system? Teacher?

The children in my neighborhood attend the schools. My children attended the schools - they are in their upper 20’s. One of my children had an IEP from 2nd to 12th grade and I have done a fair bit of advocacy surrounding their issues and trying to make sure things were better than what he experienced. I like to see how that is going. I am part of this community.

That is wonderful that you are so involved in your community.

However, my concern is that someone who is ten years removed from FCPS probably does not have enough current understanding of the school system to be an effective advocate in a designated parent/caregiver committee role.

For example, I was recently speaking with a very pro rezoning empty nester about rezoning. She had very strong opinions in support about rezoning and lots of information about the district, in particular schools outside her neighborhood, that were not in alignment with fact.

A lot of what this person stated seemed to come from this website or reddit. Several "facts" stated about my kids zoned schools were blatantly false, to the point of being laughable. At least two of these "facts" has been posted here on this site. If this person was hypothetically selected for the committee, they would be pushing for rezoning decisions that affect a lot of kids, as an expert in information that was inaccurate and based of anonymous discussion forums, not real, current FCPS experience.

Having someone who has been out of the FCPS schools for over a decade or more appointed as the allocated parent representative takes away a critical voice from.the community being represented. So much has changed in the schools since covid, which makes an even stronger case that no parent slots should be given to anyone who has not had a kid in the FCPS system since covid.

I appreciate and applaud anyone who volunteered their time on this committee, and do not fault the empty nester who volunteered.

But I am very disappointed if FCPS has given one of the precious parent slots to an empty nester who has no kids involved in FCPS and hasn't had students in a decade or more.

On the note of the article in question, is it possible that the parent rep in question simply did not mention their kid's schools over concerns of doxxing? They are maming a sacrifice of time and privacy to be on the committee. I imagine that they want to keep as much privacy for their families as possible.

So you can have current parents who know next to nothing about any schools outside their pyramid and also have misunderstandings based on reading this forum, FB (the FairFACTS site is full of false claims), or chatter with neighbors. Some just wanted to limit potential BRAC members to current parents to increase their own chances of being selected. They may have more skin in the game, but aren’t necessarily more knowledgeable.

You should not be given a designated parent slot if you are not a parent.

There are separate community spots. You should be eligible for one of those but not for one of the two slots per pyramid that are specifically allocated for parents by Dr. Reid and the school board in multiple emails.

They are designated parent/caregiver/community member slots per pyramid, as illustrated by the Mt. Vernon reps at their regional meeting.

There were supposed to be 2 per pyramid of just parents/caregivers. So 48 reps. The committee is 80. The rest were to be community members, teachers, people on other committees etc. and fairly certain the 32 other members were hand picked by Reid/the school board based on some names that have come out. People who don’t even live in Fairfax county and have not had kids in the system

Nope. It was two reps in each of the 24 pyramids who could be parents, caregivers, or community members. The others are largely staff and past/current members of other FCPS committees.

Community members were not listed in the parent/caregiver spots.

Community members were listed in the staff/community spots.

November 20 email: More than 1,600 parents/caregivers applied to participate in the Superintendent's Boundary Review Advisory Committee! Two parents/caregivers from each of FCPS' 24 high school pyramids have been invited to join the committee.

What she said.

Reid was very clear that the 2 spots/pyramid were for parents/caregivers with kids enrolled in FCPS, not childless community members.

I believe that's correct, 2 per pyramid, plus several additional folks representing community groups (NAACP, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

Upset parents wanting rezoning? Or against rezoning?

If the vibe was against rezoning, I ber they were caught off guard.

Parents against rezoning.

I’m sure the SB was NOT caught off guard by parents against rezoning.

Normally, yes.

But this is the pyramid that has schools that the school board is using to justify rezoning. I am sure they did not expect that the Lewis parents would be just as much against the disruptions of rezoning and just as strongly wanting to keep their kids in their neighborhood schools, as all of the other parents at other schools

I am not surprised, but I bet the school board was surprised, along with some of the pro rezoning non parents who post here regularly.

The Mount Vernon HS meeting with lots of Lewis folks was back on Monday, and the parents there were generally supportive of making changes and having saner boundaries than some of the craziness of the current setup.

Tonight's meeting was at Annandale, and the feedback was most uniformly supportive of changes that would allow more equitable access to programming, and specifically access for students WITHIN THEIR PYRAMID. Saying you can technically "access" a program but to do so you have to be bussed over to some other pyramid doesn't count. This seems mainly about local AAP and also the AP/IB split. But overall folks seemed more concerned about this programming issue than the boundary lines, but also understood that one could impact the other.

There was also some incongruent feedback, for example one table emphasized making sure that when they do this that they make purposeful changes that actually have an impact, don't just bow to the fear of "making the fewest people upset about changes". But on the other hand the most common phrase was "minimize disruptions", yet in the same breath many of those same groups were also supportive of some changes, especially pertaining to islands and split feeders. So minimize disruptions =/= no disruptions, it seems... basically, "only disruptions that I personally think are reasonable".

Finally, some requested looking at "more creative" changes than boundary adjustments, and one said that overcrowding wasn't the worst thing, a sense of school community is more important, and different communities want different things.

Really one sided summary. At my table, and from the reporters, the responses to the boundary changes was very negative.

There was a table who asked to make sure that each school has a similar composition of race. Definitely illegal, but curious that there are people who still think like that.