FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the committee was chosen at random.

It is clear that there is an agenda--and it is not academic excellence.

I disagree.

I know one of those parents. They are not politically involved or active, and just threw their name in the hat like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, special ed, NAACP, Title I, LGBT, Neurodivergent, Hispanic, Asian, Black educators, etc

Notice any group that is not represented?

The two dozen other groups off the list that you didn’t bother to mention?

DP. Don’t be pedantic, you understand the posters point I’m sure.

DP, no I don’t. Spell it out for me, please.

Pretty obvious: the average kid is not represented. The non-minority kid is not represented.

There’s a rep for AAP, the PTA, elementary, middle, and high school principals, general education reps, a rep for military families…

Those all make sense.

Pride does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, special ed, NAACP, Title I, LGBT, Neurodivergent, Hispanic, Asian, Black educators, etc

Notice any group that is not represented?

The two dozen other groups off the list that you didn’t bother to mention?

DP. Don’t be pedantic, you understand the posters point I’m sure.

DP, no I don’t. Spell it out for me, please.

Pretty obvious: the average kid is not represented. The non-minority kid is not represented.

Are non- minority kids also not special ed, title 1, lgbt and/or neurodivergent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, special ed, NAACP, Title I, LGBT, Neurodivergent, Hispanic, Asian, Black educators, etc

Notice any group that is not represented?

The two dozen other groups off the list that you didn’t bother to mention?

DP. Don’t be pedantic, you understand the posters point I’m sure.

DP, no I don’t. Spell it out for me, please.

Pretty obvious: the average kid is not represented. The non-minority kid is not represented.

Are non- minority kids also not special ed, title 1, lgbt and/or neurodivergent?

I mean, some are. But probably in the same percentage as minority kids (if not less for title 1). Not sure you are scoring any points with that question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, special ed, NAACP, Title I, LGBT, Neurodivergent, Hispanic, Asian, Black educators, etc

Notice any group that is not represented?

The two dozen other groups off the list that you didn’t bother to mention?

DP. Don’t be pedantic, you understand the posters point I’m sure.

DP, no I don’t. Spell it out for me, please.

Pretty obvious: the average kid is not represented. The non-minority kid is not represented.

Are non- minority kids also not special ed, title 1, lgbt and/or neurodivergent?

I mean, some are. But probably in the same percentage as minority kids (if not less for title 1). Not sure you are scoring any points with that question.

Not looking for point. Just point how how stupid the statement was.

[Anonymous]

Employees are on their because a change in school can affect staffing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Employees are on their because a change in school can affect staffing.

Sure, but shouldn’t ALL employees have similar representation?

Is FCPS playing favorites with some employee at the expense of others?

[Anonymous]

Did anyone go to the final meeting on Wednesday at Madison? Any takeaways?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone go to the final meeting on Wednesday at Madison? Any takeaways?

I did. Parents were respectful, but engaged and ready to fight changes that’ll negatively impact their kids’ schools.

Superintendent and Meren, reading the room, were offering half-assurances that they are looking at other possibilities.

Meren made a pitch for voting for the School bond in fall of 2025. I’m sure she and the other board members can see how negative boundary changes would be counter to those efforts. Parents at my table linked their support of the bond directly to whether their kids’ schools are changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone go to the final meeting on Wednesday at Madison? Any takeaways?

I did. Parents were respectful, but engaged and ready to fight changes that’ll negatively impact their kids’ schools.

Superintendent and Meren, reading the room, were offering half-assurances that they are looking at other possibilities.

Meren made a pitch for voting for the School bond in fall of 2025. I’m sure she and the other board members can see how negative boundary changes would be counter to those efforts. Parents at my table linked their support of the bond directly to whether their kids’ schools are changed.

NOW, people that is how you do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, special ed, NAACP, Title I, LGBT, Neurodivergent, Hispanic, Asian, Black educators, etc

Notice any group that is not represented?

The two dozen other groups off the list that you didn’t bother to mention?

DP. Don’t be pedantic, you understand the posters point I’m sure.

DP, no I don’t. Spell it out for me, please.

Pretty obvious: the average kid is not represented. The non-minority kid is not represented.

Are non- minority kids also not special ed, title 1, lgbt and/or neurodivergent?

I mean, some are. But probably in the same percentage as minority kids (if not less for title 1). Not sure you are scoring any points with that question.

I'm not sure you are scoring any points with that answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Employees are on their because a change in school can affect staffing.

Sure, but shouldn’t ALL employees have similar representation?

Is FCPS playing favorites with some employee at the expense of others?

smells like FCPS to me...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find so infuriating is that the majority of the pyramid members are likely against changing their kids schools, but they are just the parents supposedly chosen at random. Meanwhile, the professional equity guild has likely been hand-selected to overpower the pyramid participants.

It’s a farce.

The committee is huge. Over 100 members. I know they’re “supposed to” meet in person all the time, but I’m curious to hear from a BRAC rep how many people are showing up and how these meetings are going. I can’t imagine running a meeting with that many people. Crazy land.

Sounds like an FCPS meeting to me....I want good things for this county but I have seen too much gaslighting with FCPS. Everything seems like a show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone go to the final meeting on Wednesday at Madison? Any takeaways?

I did. Parents were respectful, but engaged and ready to fight changes that’ll negatively impact their kids’ schools.

Superintendent and Meren, reading the room, were offering half-assurances that they are looking at other possibilities.

Meren made a pitch for voting for the School bond in fall of 2025. I’m sure she and the other board members can see how negative boundary changes would be counter to those efforts. Parents at my table linked their support of the bond directly to whether their kids’ schools are changed.

I heard it was so well-attended that they had to seat people in the library because the cafeteria was full!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the committee was chosen at random.

It is clear that there is an agenda--and it is not academic excellence.

I am on the committee and I was chosen at random. I have never applied for or joined anything like this before, and I only learned about it through this forum.