Tired of Name Changes/Bad Planning - Vote NO on School Bonds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Other names will follow, and they'll cost even more money (let's see how much FCPS tries to bury in the capital budget), plus the projects they actually want to find are, for the most part, bad choices that will delay other capital projects that are needed and will aggravate demographic disparities within FCPS. So it's time to vote NO and tell FCPS we're tired of their BS.

Agree. Poor stewardship of taxpayers' funds.

The whole name change debacle should never have happened. They could have dropped the Jeb and eliminated anything that said Jeb over years at no cost. Had they done this at the beginning of this whole name change process (two years ago), Jeb would have pretty much disappeared by now and the costs would have been almost nil. Instead, I'm betting that some purchases over the last two years have gone to "Jeb" included signs, uniforms, etc.

Then vote no and STFU. People who can see beyond the single issue know that there are schools in dire need of renovation. Also, if this name change turns out to be expensive because none of the loudmouth supporters put their money where their mouth is, then the SB will have hard numbers to point to when new proposals come up. Do we really need to keep rehashing the Stuart name change for another two or more years. Just move on, and if it's an expensive debacle, be front and center with the numbers when someone proposes another name change. Simple. Stop tying everything to it. If you object to the capital expenditures the bonds are supposed to cover, that's different.

[Anonymous]

Then vote no and STFU. People who can see beyond the single issue know that there are schools in dire need of renovation. Also, if this name change turns out to be expensive because none of the loudmouth supporters put their money where their mouth is, then the SB will have hard numbers to point to when new proposals come up. Do we really need to keep rehashing the Stuart name change for another two or more years. Just move on, and if it's an expensive debacle, be front and center with the numbers when someone proposes another name change. Simple. Stop tying everything to it. If you object to the capital expenditures the bonds are supposed to cover, that's different.

The name change mess is only an example of the SB's poor stewardship. The bathroom issue is another one that was unnecessary. Lots of time and effort on discussion with no consideration to the expense--which was hardly discussed, if at all. They never think of unintended consequences.

The worst part--like in boundary discussions, they said in the name change that they were listening to the community. Problem is, they only listen to that part of the community that supports their own desires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Changing a school name so it’s no longer a homage to a Confederate general?! The horror!

You’re really going to vote against $315 million in much-needed money for important capital projects, at historically low interest rates, directed at improving children’s education—because you can’t stand the thought of investing a fraction of a percent of that amount so we’re not commemorating someone who committed treason and waged war against the United States?

Just want to make sure we’re clear on that.

I'm not who youre adressing, but yes. I'm voting no. Screw the name changes. And get rid of the illegal students before you ask me for another dime.

[Anonymous]

the only effective way to address this school board is to:

(1) organize and make allies with those groups who are fed up with the school board and administration including: parents who want better teacher/student ratios, smaller class sizes, less testing, equitable spending on all students, better governance, and more emphasis on quality of outcomes

(2) find candidates who are capable, knowledgeable and committed, and support them with contributions and outreach

(3) vote

This school board has reigned over a steady decline in FCPS - time for change.

[Anonymous]

My property taxes include a transfer for school bond repayment. That's separate from the operating budget transfer so the number they put out every year is an underestimate.

What are the costs of not boundary changing?

[Anonymous]

Time to stick to a budget. No to more bonds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. The point was that it would NO LONGER have been named after Jeb. They could have removed all reference to him and just called it Stuart--as many had for years. Do you think of George Washington every time you hear "Washington, DC"?

Not every time, but yeah, I do associate the name "Washington, DC" with George Washington. Because that's what happens when you name places after people.

The school still would have been named after Jeb if it were changed to "Stuart," but with plausible deniability. Besides, if you're changing the name already, why not go with one that indisputably isn't based on a Confederate general?

Anonymous wrote:And, your other points show a lack of understanding of other issues. You are using today's lens. The fact is that Lee and others were part of the fabric of Virginia.

Public institutions shouldn't be named after traitors--especially traitors who waged war in order to enslave other people. That should be a non-controversial proposition. If you think it's correct, then it's irrelevant how deeply the traitor is "part of the fabric." Suggesting otherwise is just buying into the Lost Cause nonsense, while dismissing the many prominent Virginians chose to fight for their country instead of against it. Of course I'm using "today's lens" because we have progressed as a society (I hope) to the point where we no longer believe in commemorating people who rebel against the United States in service of a racist cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The point was that it would NO LONGER have been named after Jeb. They could have removed all reference to him and just called it Stuart--as many had for years. Do you think of George Washington every time you hear "Washington, DC"?

Not every time, but yeah, I do associate the name "Washington, DC" with George Washington. Because that's what happens when you name places after people.

The school still would have been named after Jeb if it were changed to "Stuart," but with plausible deniability. Besides, if you're changing the name already, why not go with one that indisputably isn't based on a Confederate general?

Anonymous wrote:And, your other points show a lack of understanding of other issues. You are using today's lens. The fact is that Lee and others were part of the fabric of Virginia.

Public institutions shouldn't be named after traitors--especially traitors who waged war in order to enslave other people. That should be a non-controversial proposition. If you think it's correct, then it's irrelevant how deeply the traitor is "part of the fabric." Suggesting otherwise is just buying into the Lost Cause nonsense, while dismissing the many prominent Virginians chose to fight for their country instead of against it. Of course I'm using "today's lens" because we have progressed as a society (I hope) to the point where we no longer believe in commemorating people who rebel against the United States in service of a racist cause.

You need to read some history, rather than spout the latest catch phrases from your mom's group on Facebook. Summarizing Stuart as a traitor is incredibly naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This name change movement only started in 2015. Are you suggesting people were really venerating Confederate figures in 2010 or 1998? The fact is that people associated the school names more with the surrounding community and the schools' traditions than with the namesakes.

Giving a school a Confederate general's namesake, and continuing to refer to the school by that namesake, necessarily venerates the figure. That's why we name places after people: to commemorate them.

Anyway, who cares why it took so long? Why does it bear on whether it's proper to name public places after traitors? To the extent it matters at all, my guess is that the issue finally came to a head in 2015 because it took that long for there to be a critical mass of political will. Is it really any surprise that proponents of the name change expected heavy headwinds and waited until they saw any hope of success? I mean, look at all of the people who came out of the woodwork to fight for keeping the school named after a traitor.

Let me also put it this way: if the county builds a new school, would you propose naming it after a Confederate general? Of course you wouldn't, because it's not okay to name public places after traitors anymore, and there is a long list of people far more deserving of veneration. So let's not let status quo bias and knee-jerk reaction to change cloud the issue.

Anonymous wrote:But, either way, I'd be less concerned with the SJW fixation on school names if the School Board could demonstrate that it was otherwise exercising prudent management of FCPS's resources - i.e., looking to use to available capacity at schools like Lee and Mount Vernon, accelerating the overdue renovation at Falls Church, and moving promptly to build a new high school in western Fairfax that might discourage the continued flight of higher income families to Loudoun. But instead we get lectures on how painful names like "Stuart" are to a handful of people from the likes of Ryan McElveen, along with capital spending projects that are arbitrary and will only aggravate existing disparities between schools (West Potomac vs. Mount Vernon, Madison vs. Marshall, etc.)

Vote NO if you want to send a strong message that FCPS needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better.

It feels an awful lot like the the tail is wagging the dog here. There are certainly legitimate criticisms of how the board is dealing with issues of capacity, facilities, and competing for families that might otherwise move to Loudoun. But that's why we have candidate elections and a community engagement process. Rejecting all of those in order to launch a nuclear option of denying the board hundreds of millions of dollars in funding seems... extreme. As though you're raging about the Stuart issue and trying to justify the voter's equivalent of a primal scream by citing other issues that would be worked out through the political process in the usual course. Remember too that the vast, vast majority of the school board's time is spent on stuff other than renaming Stuart, despite what the outsized coverage of the issue might suggest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not who youre adressing, but yes. I'm voting no. Screw the name changes. And get rid of the illegal students before you ask me for another dime.

Let me get this straight. You would like to "get rid" of children and young adults in the county, nearly all of whom were brought to this country through no fault of their own, most of whose parents work and pay taxes, and would be made worse off if deported to an economically less fortunate country to which they may have no ties whatsoever. Alrighty.

For those voting "no" on the bond: this fine person is the company you're keeping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need to read some history, rather than spout the latest catch phrases from your mom's group on Facebook. Summarizing Stuart as a traitor is incredibly naive.

But is it inaccurate? Because I'm pretty sure it's accurate to call Stuart a traitor--that's what you are, by definition, when you lead an armed conflict on behalf of a secessionist cause.

You were right to suggest that I read up on General Stuart's history. I have learned all sorts of fascinating things from reviewing his Wikipedia page. For example, did you know that General Lee dispatched him to put down the abolitionist takeover of the armory at Harpers Ferry? Or that his father-in-law continued to serve the United States Army after Stuart had turncoated? Or that he changed his son's name so that his son would no longer have his father-in-law's namesake (a certain irony there)? Stuart's peers venerated him as a brilliant cavalry commander, but I'm guessing that his tactical brilliance wasn't why the new high school in Munson Hill was named after him in 1959--the year after Virginia's governor closed nine schools that had been ordered to integrate, and the same year that after segregationists lost federal and state court cases the schools were reopened, with some admitting handfuls of black students.

[Anonymous]

Why isn't a vote on bonds a legitimate exercise of the political process? Seems to me that you can decide whether this board has shown the good judgement to allocate resources (money) to your preferred objectives - if not, then don't give them any more money. It's that simple.

The fact that the board ignored their own regulations, unnecessarily distressed the community, and diverted attention from other important objectives in this renaming process is sufficient evidence that they are not capable of administering an additional $315M. So I'll vote NO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why isn't a vote on bonds a legitimate exercise of the political process? Seems to me that you can decide whether this board has shown the good judgement to allocate resources (money) to your preferred objectives - if not, then don't give them any more money. It's that simple.

The fact that the board ignored their own regulations, unnecessarily distressed the community, and diverted attention from other important objectives in this renaming process is sufficient evidence that they are not capable of administering an additional $315M. So I'll vote NO.

So, that's 2 --so far. DH will make 3, if I can convince him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the board ignored their own regulations, unnecessarily distressed the community, and diverted attention from other important objectives in this renaming process is sufficient evidence that they are not capable of administering an additional $315M.

So you're saying the board is to blame for the roaring opposition that met the proposal to name Stuart after someone or something, other than a traitor?

The issue didn't have to be controversial. Proponents sensibly argued that Stuart shouldn't be named after a Confederate general anymore. The process got out of control only after so many people grabbed their proverbial pitchforks and mounted massive resistance against the name change. The outcry from even the suggestion to change the name put the board in a jam: keeping the name would unacceptably signal their approval of commemorating a traitor, but changing the name would incense Lost Cause believers and others who still hold Confederate generals like Stuart in high regard.

Regardless, I'm having a hard time understanding why the board's handling of difficult social issue like this has any bearing on how they would properly allocate capital funds. The actual expense involved in changing Stuart's name is a rounding error in the bond proposal. If you have a bona fide problem with how the board proposes to deploy bond funds on a large scale, such as building a new school versus expanding existing facilities, then sure, a no vote may make sense. But it sounds like you're mostly mad about the Stuart issue and grasping at other excuses to support making an indiscriminate political statement about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the board ignored their own regulations, unnecessarily distressed the community, and diverted attention from other important objectives in this renaming process is sufficient evidence that they are not capable of administering an additional $315M.

So you're saying the board is to blame for the roaring opposition that met the proposal to name Stuart after someone or something, other than a traitor?

The issue didn't have to be controversial. Proponents sensibly argued that Stuart shouldn't be named after a Confederate general anymore. The process got out of control only after so many people grabbed their proverbial pitchforks and mounted massive resistance against the name change. The outcry from even the suggestion to change the name put the board in a jam: keeping the name would unacceptably signal their approval of commemorating a traitor, but changing the name would incense Lost Cause believers and others who still hold Confederate generals like Stuart in high regard.

Regardless, I'm having a hard time understanding why the board's handling of difficult social issue like this has any bearing on how they would properly allocate capital funds. The actual expense involved in changing Stuart's name is a rounding error in the bond proposal. If you have a bona fide problem with how the board proposes to deploy bond funds on a large scale, such as building a new school versus expanding existing facilities, then sure, a no vote may make sense. But it sounds like you're mostly mad about the Stuart issue and grasping at other excuses to support making an indiscriminate political statement about it.

Do you not get that this costs almost a million bucks? That money could be much better spent. JEB could have been dropped and all references to him could have pretty much been eliminated. Great learning experience for the kids--could have learned about the Civil War, Massive Resistance, etc. But, the name would not have honored Jeb any longer. and, if it had been done over a few years (remember, we are already two years into this) it would not have required much in the way of additional funds.

But, you obviously got what you wanted and the students got a name that was not selected by anyone but the School Board. A name that is used for some juvie schools, that is already being subject to demeaning because of the demographics of the school (Just-ICE) and others who are calling it Bufort T. Justice. Great choice, Sandy.

Two years ago, the SB could have easily instituted a policy to drop JEB and refer to the school as Stuart. Money saved: @$1million