FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

And yet here you are.

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.

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

Hmm. I'm not seeing quite the controversy that others might be seeing. But perhaps others know more about these people.

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.

Thank you so much for sharing, I appreciate you sharing facts. I'm relatively new to Fairfax County schools, so not really entrenched in all the drama but trying to stay abreast of how this might affect my kids.

[Anonymous]

It would be enlighteninng to see which neighborhoods/elementary schools are represented on the committee. If there are six or seven elementary schools in a pyramid, then all neighborhoods are not represented. This is particularly important if neighborhoods are going to be removed from a pyramid. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that a neighborhood rep is going to look out for their own family. Someone mentioned already that one of the THREE reps from Woodson has already spoken out to keep her neighborhood at Woodson. And why does Woodson get three reps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be enlighteninng to see which neighborhoods/elementary schools are represented on the committee. If there are six or seven elementary schools in a pyramid, then all neighborhoods are not represented. This is particularly important if neighborhoods are going to be removed from a pyramid. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that a neighborhood rep is going to look out for their own family. Someone mentioned already that one of the THREE reps from Woodson has already spoken out to keep her neighborhood at Woodson. And why does Woodson get three reps?

Because the third Woodson rep is a total suck-up to the School Board and they needed to find a place for her.

If they'd identified her as a representative of her advocacy group ("4 Public Education"), it would invite questions as to why other groups - like FairFACTS Matters and the Fairfax County Parents Association - do not have any representation on the committee. Easier to just label her as a third representative for Woodson. It's not based on the number of kids in the Woodson pyramid - quite a few other pyramids and high schools are larger.

It tells you that they don't even care about the obvious appearance of impropriety. It's FCPS, they do what they want until a court tells them otherwise, and their general philosophy is "take it or leave it." Unfortunately for them, more people with options (and high-achieving kids) will be leaving it if they continue on their current path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

And yet here you are.

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.

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

Hmm. I'm not seeing quite the controversy that others might be seeing. But perhaps others know more about these people.

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.

Thank you so much for sharing, I appreciate you sharing facts. I'm relatively new to Fairfax County schools, so not really entrenched in all the drama but trying to stay abreast of how this might affect my kids.

I encourage you to find other sources of information. Take nothing you read hear as anything other than a biased opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

And yet here you are.

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.

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

Hmm. I'm not seeing quite the controversy that others might be seeing. But perhaps others know more about these people.

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.

Thank you so much for sharing, I appreciate you sharing facts. I'm relatively new to Fairfax County schools, so not really entrenched in all the drama but trying to stay abreast of how this might affect my kids.

I encourage you to find other sources of information. Take nothing you read hear as anything other than a biased opinion.

Do tell. Because no one who is objective thinks Reid and the SB didn't try to stack the deck with people they could rely upon to rubber stamp their plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

And yet here you are.

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.

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

Hmm. I'm not seeing quite the controversy that others might be seeing. But perhaps others know more about these people.

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.

Thank you so much for sharing, I appreciate you sharing facts. I'm relatively new to Fairfax County schools, so not really entrenched in all the drama but trying to stay abreast of how this might affect my kids.

I encourage you to find other sources of information. Take nothing you read hear as anything other than a biased opinion.

Do tell. Because no one who is objective thinks Reid and the SB didn't try to stack the deck with people they could rely upon to rubber stamp their plans.

If the SB has already decided what they want to do (which is the common thread through most of this) then there is zero need to stack the advisory committee. The logic falls off constantly. But please continue to misuse the term equity and get everyone in a tizzy of something that hasn't even been proposed yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

And yet here you are.

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.

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

Hmm. I'm not seeing quite the controversy that others might be seeing. But perhaps others know more about these people.

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.

Thank you so much for sharing, I appreciate you sharing facts. I'm relatively new to Fairfax County schools, so not really entrenched in all the drama but trying to stay abreast of how this might affect my kids.

I encourage you to find other sources of information. Take nothing you read hear as anything other than a biased opinion.

Do tell. Because no one who is objective thinks Reid and the SB didn't try to stack the deck with people they could rely upon to rubber stamp their plans.

he logicIf the SB has already decided what they want to do (which is the common thread through most of this) then there is zero need to stack the advisory committee. T falls off constantly. But please continue to misuse the term equity and get everyone in a tizzy of something that hasn't even been proposed yet.

LOL! This is so they can say they "listened" to the committee. Most people do not realize how they formed the committee. And, there is no local news reporting on this. WAPO hardly touches FCPS, and, when they do, it is usually pretty one sided. Doubt they will touch this until it is a done deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

And yet here you are.

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.

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

Hmm. I'm not seeing quite the controversy that others might be seeing. But perhaps others know more about these people.

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.

Thank you so much for sharing, I appreciate you sharing facts. I'm relatively new to Fairfax County schools, so not really entrenched in all the drama but trying to stay abreast of how this might affect my kids.

I encourage you to find other sources of information. Take nothing you read hear as anything other than a biased opinion.

Do tell. Because no one who is objective thinks Reid and the SB didn't try to stack the deck with people they could rely upon to rubber stamp their plans.

If the SB has already decided what they want to do (which is the common thread through most of this) then there is zero need to stack the advisory committee. The logic falls off constantly. But please continue to misuse the term equity and get everyone in a tizzy of something that hasn't even been proposed yet.

You've got to be kidding. It's all being orchestrated so that the School Board can claim it's acting on the basis of "recommendations" from a third-party consulting firm, which they can then say the largely hand-picked advisory committee "supported." It's intended to help the School Board avoid accountability, but it's been so clumsily rolled out that anyone who is paying attention knows it's a sham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

And yet here you are.

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.

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

Hmm. I'm not seeing quite the controversy that others might be seeing. But perhaps others know more about these people.

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.

Thank you so much for sharing, I appreciate you sharing facts. I'm relatively new to Fairfax County schools, so not really entrenched in all the drama but trying to stay abreast of how this might affect my kids.

I encourage you to find other sources of information. Take nothing you read hear as anything other than a biased opinion.

Do tell. Because no one who is objective thinks Reid and the SB didn't try to stack the deck with people they could rely upon to rubber stamp their plans.

If the SB has already decided what they want to do (which is the common thread through most of this) then there is zero need to stack the advisory committee. The logic falls off constantly. But please continue to misuse the term equity and get everyone in a tizzy of something that hasn't even been proposed yet.

You've got to be kidding. It's all being orchestrated so that the School Board can claim it's acting on the basis of "recommendations" from a third-party consulting firm, which they can then say the largely hand-picked advisory committee "supported." It's intended to help the School Board avoid accountability, but it's been so clumsily rolled out that anyone who is paying attention knows it's a sham.

If you need to keep telling yourself that to feel better then so be it. Happy holidays!

[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: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

And yet here you are.

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.

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

Hmm. I'm not seeing quite the controversy that others might be seeing. But perhaps others know more about these people.

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.

Thank you so much for sharing, I appreciate you sharing facts. I'm relatively new to Fairfax County schools, so not really entrenched in all the drama but trying to stay abreast of how this might affect my kids.

I encourage you to find other sources of information. Take nothing you read hear as anything other than a biased opinion.

Do tell. Because no one who is objective thinks Reid and the SB didn't try to stack the deck with people they could rely upon to rubber stamp their plans.

If the SB has already decided what they want to do (which is the common thread through most of this) then there is zero need to stack the advisory committee. The logic falls off constantly. But please continue to misuse the term equity and get everyone in a tizzy of something that hasn't even been proposed yet.

You've got to be kidding. It's all being orchestrated so that the School Board can claim it's acting on the basis of "recommendations" from a third-party consulting firm, which they can then say the largely hand-picked advisory committee "supported." It's intended to help the School Board avoid accountability, but it's been so clumsily rolled out that anyone who is paying attention knows it's a sham.

If you need to keep telling yourself that to feel better then so be it. Happy holidays!

It doesn't, or at least shouldn't, make anyone feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

And yet here you are.

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.

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

Hmm. I'm not seeing quite the controversy that others might be seeing. But perhaps others know more about these people.

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.

Thank you so much for sharing, I appreciate you sharing facts. I'm relatively new to Fairfax County schools, so not really entrenched in all the drama but trying to stay abreast of how this might affect my kids.

I encourage you to find other sources of information. Take nothing you read hear as anything other than a biased opinion.

Do tell. Because no one who is objective thinks Reid and the SB didn't try to stack the deck with people they could rely upon to rubber stamp their plans.

If the SB has already decided what they want to do (which is the common thread through most of this) then there is zero need to stack the advisory committee. The logic falls off constantly. But please continue to misuse the term equity and get everyone in a tizzy of something that hasn't even been proposed yet.

You've got to be kidding. It's all being orchestrated so that the School Board can claim it's acting on the basis of "recommendations" from a third-party consulting firm, which they can then say the largely hand-picked advisory committee "supported." It's intended to help the School Board avoid accountability, but it's been so clumsily rolled out that anyone who is paying attention knows it's a sham.

+1. I just fear not enough people are paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see if Sears proposes vouchers for all in her campaign. I'd consider voting for her if she did that. Also waiting to see how the sanctuary policy Youngkin is proposing shakes out

+1. We don’t need it to afford private, but FCPS school board does not deserve our funding after this equity-based redistricting.

What equity-based redistricting?

When they move MC/UMC kids to schools that are high FARMS and high ELL in an attempt to cover up the fact that they are failing the kids at those schools. Adults don't know how to do their jobs to enact policy to improve individual learners so instead they move kids around so that the test scores and other benchmarks don't look as terrible on paper.

It’s actually the exact opposite that has happened repeatedly in FCPS for the past 15+ years, but you know that. God forbid they try to undo even a small part of the damage they’ve inflicted on schools like Annandale and Lewis.

DP. What damage? Be specific.

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.

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.

Thanks for confirming. Poor schools don't need more kids to get improved facilities. As Justice shows, you can have brand new everything and still people avoid it like the plague.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see if Sears proposes vouchers for all in her campaign. I'd consider voting for her if she did that. Also waiting to see how the sanctuary policy Youngkin is proposing shakes out

+1. We don’t need it to afford private, but FCPS school board does not deserve our funding after this equity-based redistricting.

What equity-based redistricting?

When they move MC/UMC kids to schools that are high FARMS and high ELL in an attempt to cover up the fact that they are failing the kids at those schools. Adults don't know how to do their jobs to enact policy to improve individual learners so instead they move kids around so that the test scores and other benchmarks don't look as terrible on paper.

It’s actually the exact opposite that has happened repeatedly in FCPS for the past 15+ years, but you know that. God forbid they try to undo even a small part of the damage they’ve inflicted on schools like Annandale and Lewis.

DP. What damage? Be specific.

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.

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.

Thanks for confirming. Poor schools don't need more kids to get improved facilities. As Justice shows, you can have brand new everything and still people avoid it like the plague.

Odd that you'd bring Justice into the conversation, as unlike Annandale and Lewis its boundaries haven't changed much for a long time.

Justice doesn't have "brand-new everything." It recently got an addition, but the rest of the school was last renovated about 20 years ago. And I guess only some people count as "people" to you. Justice has over 100 more students than Langley and over 200 more than Madison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see if Sears proposes vouchers for all in her campaign. I'd consider voting for her if she did that. Also waiting to see how the sanctuary policy Youngkin is proposing shakes out

+1. We don’t need it to afford private, but FCPS school board does not deserve our funding after this equity-based redistricting.

What equity-based redistricting?

When they move MC/UMC kids to schools that are high FARMS and high ELL in an attempt to cover up the fact that they are failing the kids at those schools. Adults don't know how to do their jobs to enact policy to improve individual learners so instead they move kids around so that the test scores and other benchmarks don't look as terrible on paper.

It’s actually the exact opposite that has happened repeatedly in FCPS for the past 15+ years, but you know that. God forbid they try to undo even a small part of the damage they’ve inflicted on schools like Annandale and Lewis.

DP. What damage? Be specific.

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.

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.

Thanks for confirming. Poor schools don't need more kids to get improved facilities. As Justice shows, you can have brand new everything and still people avoid it like the plague.

Odd that you'd bring Justice into the conversation, as unlike Annandale and Lewis its boundaries haven't changed much for a long time.

Justice doesn't have "brand-new everything." It recently got an addition, but the rest of the school was last renovated about 20 years ago. And I guess only some people count as "people" to you. Justice has over 100 more students than Langley and over 200 more than Madison.

If you want to argue that FCPS is failing Lewis and Annandale by not providing new facilities, just say that. That is separate from whether other kids should be rezone there. You are the on making the argument that lot of poor kids make the school undesirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see if Sears proposes vouchers for all in her campaign. I'd consider voting for her if she did that. Also waiting to see how the sanctuary policy Youngkin is proposing shakes out

+1. We don’t need it to afford private, but FCPS school board does not deserve our funding after this equity-based redistricting.

What equity-based redistricting?

When they move MC/UMC kids to schools that are high FARMS and high ELL in an attempt to cover up the fact that they are failing the kids at those schools. Adults don't know how to do their jobs to enact policy to improve individual learners so instead they move kids around so that the test scores and other benchmarks don't look as terrible on paper.

It’s actually the exact opposite that has happened repeatedly in FCPS for the past 15+ years, but you know that. God forbid they try to undo even a small part of the damage they’ve inflicted on schools like Annandale and Lewis.

DP. What damage? Be specific.

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.

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.

Thanks for confirming. Poor schools don't need more kids to get improved facilities. As Justice shows, you can have brand new everything and still people avoid it like the plague.

Odd that you'd bring Justice into the conversation, as unlike Annandale and Lewis its boundaries haven't changed much for a long time.

Justice doesn't have "brand-new everything." It recently got an addition, but the rest of the school was last renovated about 20 years ago. And I guess only some people count as "people" to you. Justice has over 100 more students than Langley and over 200 more than Madison.

If you want to argue that FCPS is failing Lewis and Annandale by not providing new facilities, just say that. That is separate from whether other kids should be rezone there. You are the on making the argument that lot of poor kids make the school undesirable.

FCPS has served schools like Lewis and Annandale poorly both by neglecting the physical plants and by redistricting single-family neighborhoods to other schools. These things are not mutually exclusive, but together they promote the concentration of poverty at those schools.