FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn’t public schools strive to educate ALL students by offering as many courses and athletic options as possible?

If you think your kid might be a “pawn” in this possible plan, private school might be an option or a home closer to your desired school.

Your LCD vision of public schools will drive UMC/MC families away.

I wouldn’t be too quick to drive those families out of the school district, because from what I hear the Fcps schools are cash strapped, and man are those state wide vouchers going to cut deep in Fcps.

All you equity warriors may want to stop and think for a moment before you screw up the entire county.

+1
Some of us have roots on both coasts and are ready to move in the blink of an eye. Say goodbye to our taxes.

Don’t wait, leave now!

Your home will be repurchased quickly, so no worries about the taxes.

FCPS would be better off without parents like you.

DP. All we hear from the equity pushers is that you desperately need our kids. Make up your minds already.
🙄

The family of a similar economic status who can afford your house will do just as well. Your kid is very replaceable in this equation.

Who said I’m moving? Womp womp. My kids won’t be replaced by anyone, and then we’ll starve the schools of voucher money. Good luck with the downward spiral!

Oh good! Pull your voucher funding and starve the local schools that determine your house value when you go to sell. Great plan! WOMP WOMP WOMP

I don’t need the money, so that’s not the own that you think it is. I used to adamantly defend public education. The Fcps school board and agenda changed my view on it.

[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.

The third-party consulting firm isn't making recommendations, they are facilitating the process with the data and tools. The Supt's committee can give them recs... "show us what would happen if you did X" and then the consultants use the tool and crunch the numbers showing what the impact on various programs and overall capacity would be, etc. Then the committee says "OK, now adjust so that Y instead of Z" and they do that. They may be able to provide suggestions to questions the committee asks "how might we be able to best achieve Q?" but point is that their work is reactive to the committee's direction. But anyone who has been paying attention and bothered to have detailed conversations with how the process will work at any of the community meetings knows that your characterization of how the process will work is 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:

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.

The third-party consulting firm isn't making recommendations, they are facilitating the process with the data and tools. The Supt's committee can give them recs... "show us what would happen if you did X" and then the consultants use the tool and crunch the numbers showing what the impact on various programs and overall capacity would be, etc. Then the committee says "OK, now adjust so that Y instead of Z" and they do that. They may be able to provide suggestions to questions the committee asks "how might we be able to best achieve Q?" but point is that their work is reactive to the committee's direction. But anyone who has been paying attention and bothered to have detailed conversations with how the process will work at any of the community meetings knows that your characterization of how the process will work is a sham.

There are a lot of committee members. It’s amusing that you pretend the committee can function in the quasi-executive manner you describe - i.e., providing such specific direction to the consultants. If all the consultants are doing is manipulating software that it’s licensing from another vendor, that would beg the question as to why Facilities couldn’t license the software directly and save FCPS $500K. Not to mention that various School Board members have said Thru would be proving expert advice and making recommendations.

In short, your effort to suggest the process will be driven by the committee is a farce. They can challenge, or they can rubber stamp, but it’s a joke to suggest they will drive the process. They are there primarily for window-dressing.

[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: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.

The third-party consulting firm isn't making recommendations, they are facilitating the process with the data and tools. The Supt's committee can give them recs... "show us what would happen if you did X" and then the consultants use the tool and crunch the numbers showing what the impact on various programs and overall capacity would be, etc. Then the committee says "OK, now adjust so that Y instead of Z" and they do that. They may be able to provide suggestions to questions the committee asks "how might we be able to best achieve Q?" but point is that their work is reactive to the committee's direction. But anyone who has been paying attention and bothered to have detailed conversations with how the process will work at any of the community meetings knows that your characterization of how the process will work is a sham.

There are a lot of committee members. It’s amusing that you pretend the committee can function in the quasi-executive manner you describe - i.e., providing such specific direction to the consultants. If all the consultants are doing is manipulating software that it’s licensing from another vendor, that would beg the question as to why Facilities couldn’t license the software directly and save FCPS $500K. Not to mention that various School Board members have said Thru would be proving expert advice and making recommendations.

In short, your effort to suggest the process will be driven by the committee is a farce. They can challenge, or they can rubber stamp, but it’s a joke to suggest they will drive the process. They are there primarily for window-dressing.

There are no specific predetermined boundary outcomes. There are many, many potential school boundary outcomes that would satisfy FCPS administration goals. The purpose of the committees is to accomplish core FCPS administration goals (e.g., efficient boundaries that minimize costs) in the least objectionable way possible. Involving the public in a semi meaningful way also provides some political cover for the whole process. From the perspective of those who want no changes to any boundaries (or no changes in the areas that are ultimately affected), it is a form of window dressing, since the status quo won’t be an option. But these committees will play in an important role in helping FCPS achieve its objectives in manner that is more defensible and it should result in boundaries that are less objectionable to the public at large (as compared to various potential alternatives). FCPS will be able to respond to criticism of many specific boundary changes by pointing to specific feedback from the boundary 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: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.

The third-party consulting firm isn't making recommendations, they are facilitating the process with the data and tools. The Supt's committee can give them recs... "show us what would happen if you did X" and then the consultants use the tool and crunch the numbers showing what the impact on various programs and overall capacity would be, etc. Then the committee says "OK, now adjust so that Y instead of Z" and they do that. They may be able to provide suggestions to questions the committee asks "how might we be able to best achieve Q?" but point is that their work is reactive to the committee's direction. But anyone who has been paying attention and bothered to have detailed conversations with how the process will work at any of the community meetings knows that your characterization of how the process will work is a sham.

There are a lot of committee members. It’s amusing that you pretend the committee can function in the quasi-executive manner you describe - i.e., providing such specific direction to the consultants. If all the consultants are doing is manipulating software that it’s licensing from another vendor, that would beg the question as to why Facilities couldn’t license the software directly and save FCPS $500K. Not to mention that various School Board members have said Thru would be proving expert advice and making recommendations.

In short, your effort to suggest the process will be driven by the committee is a farce. They can challenge, or they can rubber stamp, but it’s a joke to suggest they will drive the process. They are there primarily for window-dressing.

There are no specific predetermined boundary outcomes. There are many, many potential school boundary outcomes that would satisfy FCPS administration goals. The purpose of the committees is to accomplish core FCPS administration goals (e.g., efficient boundaries that minimize costs) in the least objectionable way possible. Involving the public in a semi meaningful way also provides some political cover for the whole process. From the perspective of those who want no changes to any boundaries (or no changes in the areas that are ultimately affected), it is a form of window dressing, since the status quo won’t be an option. But these committees will play in an important role in helping FCPS achieve its objectives in manner that is more defensible and it should result in boundaries that are less objectionable to the public at large (as compared to various potential alternatives). FCPS will be able to respond to criticism of many specific boundary changes by pointing to specific feedback from the boundary committee.

It’s hand-selected stacked-deck committee? Gtfoh.

The superintendent and sb should understand that they own the changes and whatever ramifications result from them.

[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: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.

The third-party consulting firm isn't making recommendations, they are facilitating the process with the data and tools. The Supt's committee can give them recs... "show us what would happen if you did X" and then the consultants use the tool and crunch the numbers showing what the impact on various programs and overall capacity would be, etc. Then the committee says "OK, now adjust so that Y instead of Z" and they do that. They may be able to provide suggestions to questions the committee asks "how might we be able to best achieve Q?" but point is that their work is reactive to the committee's direction. But anyone who has been paying attention and bothered to have detailed conversations with how the process will work at any of the community meetings knows that your characterization of how the process will work is a sham.

There are a lot of committee members. It’s amusing that you pretend the committee can function in the quasi-executive manner you describe - i.e., providing such specific direction to the consultants. If all the consultants are doing is manipulating software that it’s licensing from another vendor, that would beg the question as to why Facilities couldn’t license the software directly and save FCPS $500K. Not to mention that various School Board members have said Thru would be proving expert advice and making recommendations.

In short, your effort to suggest the process will be driven by the committee is a farce. They can challenge, or they can rubber stamp, but it’s a joke to suggest they will drive the process. They are there primarily for window-dressing.

There are no specific predetermined boundary outcomes. There are many, many potential school boundary outcomes that would satisfy FCPS administration goals. The purpose of the committees is to accomplish core FCPS administration goals (e.g., efficient boundaries that minimize costs) in the least objectionable way possible. Involving the public in a semi meaningful way also provides some political cover for the whole process. From the perspective of those who want no changes to any boundaries (or no changes in the areas that are ultimately affected), it is a form of window dressing, since the status quo won’t be an option. But these committees will play in an important role in helping FCPS achieve its objectives in manner that is more defensible and it should result in boundaries that are less objectionable to the public at large (as compared to various potential alternatives). FCPS will be able to respond to criticism of many specific boundary changes by pointing to specific feedback from the boundary committee.

It’s hand-selected stacked-deck committee? Gtfoh.

The superintendent and sb should understand that they own the changes and whatever ramifications result from them.

BS. It’s not hand selected. I was picked and I’ve never served on any FCPS or similar committee before. I only found out about the committee by following this site. FCPS is obviously running the show as they facilitate and dictate all the prompts, but they are asking our opinions and recording what we say.

[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: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.

The third-party consulting firm isn't making recommendations, they are facilitating the process with the data and tools. The Supt's committee can give them recs... "show us what would happen if you did X" and then the consultants use the tool and crunch the numbers showing what the impact on various programs and overall capacity would be, etc. Then the committee says "OK, now adjust so that Y instead of Z" and they do that. They may be able to provide suggestions to questions the committee asks "how might we be able to best achieve Q?" but point is that their work is reactive to the committee's direction. But anyone who has been paying attention and bothered to have detailed conversations with how the process will work at any of the community meetings knows that your characterization of how the process will work is a sham.

There are a lot of committee members. It’s amusing that you pretend the committee can function in the quasi-executive manner you describe - i.e., providing such specific direction to the consultants. If all the consultants are doing is manipulating software that it’s licensing from another vendor, that would beg the question as to why Facilities couldn’t license the software directly and save FCPS $500K. Not to mention that various School Board members have said Thru would be proving expert advice and making recommendations.

In short, your effort to suggest the process will be driven by the committee is a farce. They can challenge, or they can rubber stamp, but it’s a joke to suggest they will drive the process. They are there primarily for window-dressing.

There are no specific predetermined boundary outcomes. There are many, many potential school boundary outcomes that would satisfy FCPS administration goals. The purpose of the committees is to accomplish core FCPS administration goals (e.g., efficient boundaries that minimize costs) in the least objectionable way possible. Involving the public in a semi meaningful way also provides some political cover for the whole process. From the perspective of those who want no changes to any boundaries (or no changes in the areas that are ultimately affected), it is a form of window dressing, since the status quo won’t be an option. But these committees will play in an important role in helping FCPS achieve its objectives in manner that is more defensible and it should result in boundaries that are less objectionable to the public at large (as compared to various potential alternatives). FCPS will be able to respond to criticism of many specific boundary changes by pointing to specific feedback from the boundary committee.

It’s hand-selected stacked-deck committee? Gtfoh.

The superintendent and sb should understand that they own the changes and whatever ramifications result from them.

BS. It’s not hand selected. I was picked and I’ve never served on any FCPS or similar committee before. I only found out about the committee by following this site. FCPS is obviously running the show as they facilitate and dictate all the prompts, but they are asking our opinions and recording what we say.

Many of the BRAC members were indeed hand-picked and, as you note, FCPS is running the show. They can ask your opinions but will still infer what they want to infer from your feedback, so you are really ultimately providing cover for them to do what they want to do.

[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: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.

The third-party consulting firm isn't making recommendations, they are facilitating the process with the data and tools. The Supt's committee can give them recs... "show us what would happen if you did X" and then the consultants use the tool and crunch the numbers showing what the impact on various programs and overall capacity would be, etc. Then the committee says "OK, now adjust so that Y instead of Z" and they do that. They may be able to provide suggestions to questions the committee asks "how might we be able to best achieve Q?" but point is that their work is reactive to the committee's direction. But anyone who has been paying attention and bothered to have detailed conversations with how the process will work at any of the community meetings knows that your characterization of how the process will work is a sham.

There are a lot of committee members. It’s amusing that you pretend the committee can function in the quasi-executive manner you describe - i.e., providing such specific direction to the consultants. If all the consultants are doing is manipulating software that it’s licensing from another vendor, that would beg the question as to why Facilities couldn’t license the software directly and save FCPS $500K. Not to mention that various School Board members have said Thru would be proving expert advice and making recommendations.

In short, your effort to suggest the process will be driven by the committee is a farce. They can challenge, or they can rubber stamp, but it’s a joke to suggest they will drive the process. They are there primarily for window-dressing.

There are no specific predetermined boundary outcomes. There are many, many potential school boundary outcomes that would satisfy FCPS administration goals. The purpose of the committees is to accomplish core FCPS administration goals (e.g., efficient boundaries that minimize costs) in the least objectionable way possible. Involving the public in a semi meaningful way also provides some political cover for the whole process. From the perspective of those who want no changes to any boundaries (or no changes in the areas that are ultimately affected), it is a form of window dressing, since the status quo won’t be an option. But these committees will play in an important role in helping FCPS achieve its objectives in manner that is more defensible and it should result in boundaries that are less objectionable to the public at large (as compared to various potential alternatives). FCPS will be able to respond to criticism of many specific boundary changes by pointing to specific feedback from the boundary committee.

It’s hand-selected stacked-deck committee? Gtfoh.

The superintendent and sb should understand that they own the changes and whatever ramifications result from them.

BS. It’s not hand selected. I was picked and I’ve never served on any FCPS or similar committee before. I only found out about the committee by following this site. FCPS is obviously running the show as they facilitate and dictate all the prompts, but they are asking our opinions and recording what we say.

Almost half of the committee members are special interest picks. It’s Fcps stacking the deck to include them in addition to the randomly chosen others like yourself.

You are a voice of the community. The hand picked members are there to try to push the school board’s agenda through.

[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:

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.

The third-party consulting firm isn't making recommendations, they are facilitating the process with the data and tools. The Supt's committee can give them recs... "show us what would happen if you did X" and then the consultants use the tool and crunch the numbers showing what the impact on various programs and overall capacity would be, etc. Then the committee says "OK, now adjust so that Y instead of Z" and they do that. They may be able to provide suggestions to questions the committee asks "how might we be able to best achieve Q?" but point is that their work is reactive to the committee's direction. But anyone who has been paying attention and bothered to have detailed conversations with how the process will work at any of the community meetings knows that your characterization of how the process will work is a sham.

There are a lot of committee members. It’s amusing that you pretend the committee can function in the quasi-executive manner you describe - i.e., providing such specific direction to the consultants. If all the consultants are doing is manipulating software that it’s licensing from another vendor, that would beg the question as to why Facilities couldn’t license the software directly and save FCPS $500K. Not to mention that various School Board members have said Thru would be proving expert advice and making recommendations.

In short, your effort to suggest the process will be driven by the committee is a farce. They can challenge, or they can rubber stamp, but it’s a joke to suggest they will drive the process. They are there primarily for window-dressing.

There are no specific predetermined boundary outcomes. There are many, many potential school boundary outcomes that would satisfy FCPS administration goals. The purpose of the committees is to accomplish core FCPS administration goals (e.g., efficient boundaries that minimize costs) in the least objectionable way possible. Involving the public in a semi meaningful way also provides some political cover for the whole process. From the perspective of those who want no changes to any boundaries (or no changes in the areas that are ultimately affected), it is a form of window dressing, since the status quo won’t be an option. But these committees will play in an important role in helping FCPS achieve its objectives in manner that is more defensible and it should result in boundaries that are less objectionable to the public at large (as compared to various potential alternatives). FCPS will be able to respond to criticism of many specific boundary changes by pointing to specific feedback from the boundary committee.

It’s hand-selected stacked-deck committee? Gtfoh.

The superintendent and sb should understand that they own the changes and whatever ramifications result from them.

BS. It’s not hand selected. I was picked and I’ve never served on any FCPS or similar committee before. I only found out about the committee by following this site. FCPS is obviously running the show as they facilitate and dictate all the prompts, but they are asking our opinions and recording what we say.

Almost half of the committee members are special interest picks. It’s Fcps stacking the deck to include them in addition to the randomly chosen others like yourself.

You are a voice of the community. The hand picked members are there to try to push the school board’s agenda through.

Special interest pics are also members of the community and represent other voices. There are many perspectives amongst them.

[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:

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.

The third-party consulting firm isn't making recommendations, they are facilitating the process with the data and tools. The Supt's committee can give them recs... "show us what would happen if you did X" and then the consultants use the tool and crunch the numbers showing what the impact on various programs and overall capacity would be, etc. Then the committee says "OK, now adjust so that Y instead of Z" and they do that. They may be able to provide suggestions to questions the committee asks "how might we be able to best achieve Q?" but point is that their work is reactive to the committee's direction. But anyone who has been paying attention and bothered to have detailed conversations with how the process will work at any of the community meetings knows that your characterization of how the process will work is a sham.

There are a lot of committee members. It’s amusing that you pretend the committee can function in the quasi-executive manner you describe - i.e., providing such specific direction to the consultants. If all the consultants are doing is manipulating software that it’s licensing from another vendor, that would beg the question as to why Facilities couldn’t license the software directly and save FCPS $500K. Not to mention that various School Board members have said Thru would be proving expert advice and making recommendations.

In short, your effort to suggest the process will be driven by the committee is a farce. They can challenge, or they can rubber stamp, but it’s a joke to suggest they will drive the process. They are there primarily for window-dressing.

There are no specific predetermined boundary outcomes. There are many, many potential school boundary outcomes that would satisfy FCPS administration goals. The purpose of the committees is to accomplish core FCPS administration goals (e.g., efficient boundaries that minimize costs) in the least objectionable way possible. Involving the public in a semi meaningful way also provides some political cover for the whole process. From the perspective of those who want no changes to any boundaries (or no changes in the areas that are ultimately affected), it is a form of window dressing, since the status quo won’t be an option. But these committees will play in an important role in helping FCPS achieve its objectives in manner that is more defensible and it should result in boundaries that are less objectionable to the public at large (as compared to various potential alternatives). FCPS will be able to respond to criticism of many specific boundary changes by pointing to specific feedback from the boundary committee.

It’s hand-selected stacked-deck committee? Gtfoh.

The superintendent and sb should understand that they own the changes and whatever ramifications result from them.

BS. It’s not hand selected. I was picked and I’ve never served on any FCPS or similar committee before. I only found out about the committee by following this site. FCPS is obviously running the show as they facilitate and dictate all the prompts, but they are asking our opinions and recording what we say.

Almost half of the committee members are special interest picks. It’s Fcps stacking the deck to include them in addition to the randomly chosen others like yourself.

You are a voice of the community. The hand picked members are there to try to push the school board’s agenda through.

Special interest pics are also members of the community and represent other voices. There are many perspectives amongst them.

🙄. a lot of groups are over-represented on the committee. Those special interest picks represent the special interest groups, nothing more.

[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:

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.

The third-party consulting firm isn't making recommendations, they are facilitating the process with the data and tools. The Supt's committee can give them recs... "show us what would happen if you did X" and then the consultants use the tool and crunch the numbers showing what the impact on various programs and overall capacity would be, etc. Then the committee says "OK, now adjust so that Y instead of Z" and they do that. They may be able to provide suggestions to questions the committee asks "how might we be able to best achieve Q?" but point is that their work is reactive to the committee's direction. But anyone who has been paying attention and bothered to have detailed conversations with how the process will work at any of the community meetings knows that your characterization of how the process will work is a sham.

There are a lot of committee members. It’s amusing that you pretend the committee can function in the quasi-executive manner you describe - i.e., providing such specific direction to the consultants. If all the consultants are doing is manipulating software that it’s licensing from another vendor, that would beg the question as to why Facilities couldn’t license the software directly and save FCPS $500K. Not to mention that various School Board members have said Thru would be proving expert advice and making recommendations.

In short, your effort to suggest the process will be driven by the committee is a farce. They can challenge, or they can rubber stamp, but it’s a joke to suggest they will drive the process. They are there primarily for window-dressing.

There are no specific predetermined boundary outcomes. There are many, many potential school boundary outcomes that would satisfy FCPS administration goals. The purpose of the committees is to accomplish core FCPS administration goals (e.g., efficient boundaries that minimize costs) in the least objectionable way possible. Involving the public in a semi meaningful way also provides some political cover for the whole process. From the perspective of those who want no changes to any boundaries (or no changes in the areas that are ultimately affected), it is a form of window dressing, since the status quo won’t be an option. But these committees will play in an important role in helping FCPS achieve its objectives in manner that is more defensible and it should result in boundaries that are less objectionable to the public at large (as compared to various potential alternatives). FCPS will be able to respond to criticism of many specific boundary changes by pointing to specific feedback from the boundary committee.

It’s hand-selected stacked-deck committee? Gtfoh.

The superintendent and sb should understand that they own the changes and whatever ramifications result from them.

BS. It’s not hand selected. I was picked and I’ve never served on any FCPS or similar committee before. I only found out about the committee by following this site. FCPS is obviously running the show as they facilitate and dictate all the prompts, but they are asking our opinions and recording what we say.

Almost half of the committee members are special interest picks. It’s Fcps stacking the deck to include them in addition to the randomly chosen others like yourself.

You are a voice of the community. The hand picked members are there to try to push the school board’s agenda through.

Special interest pics are also members of the community and represent other voices. There are many perspectives amongst them.

🙄. a lot of groups are over-represented on the committee. Those special interest picks represent the special interest groups, nothing more.

As a parent of a child with an IEP, I am very happy to see representation from SEPTA. Our voices should be on the committee. Am also happy to see teachers and a Principal on the committee - those are more voices that should be heard.

[Anonymous]

They deliberately excluded some special interest groups that are extremely well versed in the issues but might challenge the agenda of Reid and the School Board. The process is a sham. I understand why those on the committee might feel flattered but the process overall lacks integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They deliberately excluded some special interest groups that are extremely well versed in the issues but might challenge the agenda of Reid and the School Board. The process is a sham. I understand why those on the committee might feel flattered but the process overall lacks integrity.

Well versed in propaganda is different than well versed in the issues. Your bias is showing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They deliberately excluded some special interest groups that are extremely well versed in the issues but might challenge the agenda of Reid and the School Board. The process is a sham. I understand why those on the committee might feel flattered but the process overall lacks integrity.

Which ones were deliberately excluded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They deliberately excluded some special interest groups that are extremely well versed in the issues but might challenge the agenda of Reid and the School Board. The process is a sham. I understand why those on the committee might feel flattered but the process overall lacks integrity.

Well versed in propaganda is different than well versed in the issues. Your bias is showing.

No, I was referring to having a far better grasp of the data and assumptions underlying FCPS’s enrollment projections. Some of the hand-picked members have admitted they know little and rely entirely on FCPS for that information. Some of the groups excluded have done a much deeper dive.

But you don’t care, because you want to be a good SB shill and are happy to play along.