Forum Index
»
Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
FCPS comprehensive boundary review
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
pj's! Ohhhhh lol. They distracted single family homes and not more apartments/condos to Langley. It's so obvious to everybody. |
Anonymous
They won't be specific of course because to do so would be to admit that they believe that certain children damage schools just by having demographics they also deem undesirable. That would be admitting to having the same thoughts as those that are trying to denigrate. Such hypocrisy. |
Anonymous
Sounds like a self-own on your part. It’s clear that MC/UMC kids are more likely to enable a school to offer more challenging academics and a wider range of electives and extra-curricular activities. The MC/UMC families are also far more able (and likely) to have the time and resources to participate in PTAs and booster programs. For over 15 years, FCPS has only redistricted to move MC/UMC neighborhoods into wealthier schools. Moving Annandale kids to Woodson and Lewis kids to West Springfield are just two examples. It increased both the actual and the perceived disparities between neighboring schools. The wealthier schools got expanded and saw their enrollments grow, while the older, poorer schools get neglected. Of course people pick up on this, and then object to potentially getting moved to the schools that FCPS itself has treated poorly. Now that FCPS is implicitly acknowledging its mistakes, and possibly poised to do something about it, people who benefitted from their past actions predictably object. And, not surprisingly, no group defends the status quo as much as Langley parents, since that school is a case study in economic segregation facilitated by prior School Board members. They are today’s equivalent of the white supremacists who fought integration at every turn in the 1950s and 1960s. |
Anonymous
| Are yall really going to keep having the same fights on here every few pages of the thread? Damn, go spend Christmas with your families and voice your concerns to the SB |
Anonymous
Until the sb stops it’s equity redistricting, I won’t quit. |
Anonymous
And yet here you are. |
Anonymous
Hahahaa. Predictable response. Knew somebody would say that when I typed it out, but I'm just here trying to gain some info on the process where I can. Not fighting with others. But look at me now....here i am. |
Anonymous
May I suggest you start with perusing the special interest committee members hand picked for the committee that’ll be making recommendations to the superintendent? https://www.fcps.edu/members-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee |
Anonymous
Hmm. I'm not seeing quite the controversy that others might be seeing. But perhaps others know more about these people. |
Anonymous
🙄 |
Anonymous
What I'm gathering from your emoji is that you have issues with anything but the majority being represented. |
Anonymous
DP. For those familiar with the names, apart from the pyramid representatives selected at random, FCPS stacked the committee largely with people who have either publicly expressed support for boundary changes and/or are long-time Democratic activists who can be expected to rubber stamp what the School Board wants to do. Conversely, local community activists who have communicated reservations about boundary changes were not contacted to serve in these additional community slots. To take three examples, one appointed member is a prior head of the NAACP's Education Committee. She lives in the Langley district and has long told people she thinks part of Great Falls should be redistricted to South Lakes or Herndon. A second is a long-time LBGTQ activist who has admitted he knows little about school boundaries, but who can be expected to support boundary changes in exchange for being reappointed to other FCPS advisory committees. A third is a member of the "4 Public Education" group that has publicly called for boundary changes (while she recently testified before the School Board that there couldn't possibly be any reason to redistrict her own community, Mantua). Yet not a single representative of the FairFACTS Matters group, which has expressed concerns about the boundary review and called for a deep dive into the enrollment projections that FCPS presumably would rely upon in the study, was apparently appointed to the committee. |
Anonymous
I am hoping that these folks are represented so that if the results come back in favor of NO boundary changes, they can point to the committee make up and say they had plenty of feedback and support for changes, but the data does not support it. |
Anonymous
|
^ This is particularly galling since FCPS paid for an earlier consultant to survey families and found strong opposition to boundary changes.
These results were ignored and, instead, FCPS hired another consultant with a mandate to explore boundary changes and then stacked a committee with people disposed to rubber-stamp boundary changes. Lumps of coal in the stockings of the School Board members perpetrating this farce on the public. |
Anonymous
Each pyramid has two parents (sometime three), so everyone has equal representation. Almost equal in numbers are special interest groups. I have no issue with teachers groups or employee groups being represented, but I’m not sure why there are specific racial categories or sexual orientation groups represented (sometimes multiple times over) on a committee that involves implementing a policy that touches on neither. I am adamantly for equal representation. I adamantly oppose over-representation for particular groups on a boundary review committee that will supposedly be influential in drawing maps. Based on the results of this past November, I don’t think I’m the only one who hasn’t bought into the equity argument. |