FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[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:

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.

I don’t think anyone has a bone to pick with SEPTA or the various Principals groups or facilities planning. But there are definitely interest group reps that are a lot more questionable. They also snuck one of the Woodson reps in as a “randomly selected community member” vs. what she actually is which is a member of an activist group. But if they had listed her that way they would have opened themselves up to criticism for not having other political group activists, so it was easier to sneak her in through the “back door” so to speak.

[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.

Which ones were deliberately excluded?

How can FCPS have representatives for all racial demographics while explicitly excluding one?

Doesn't that violate federal law?

[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:

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.

I don’t mind teachers and employees having a voice, but why are there certain racial teachers groups and lgbta employee groups with the sb members’ friends selected?

Are these groups going to be impacted more by the changes? If DCUM equity warriors are to be believed, maybe we need representatives of high SES households on the committee.

Just not sure how the school board members’ friends are going to be impacted more by the changes than Fairfax county residents.

[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:

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.

I don’t think anyone has a bone to pick with SEPTA or the various Principals groups or facilities planning. But there are definitely interest group reps that are a lot more questionable. They also snuck one of the Woodson reps in as a “randomly selected community member” vs. what she actually is which is a member of an activist group. But if they had listed her that way they would have opened themselves up to criticism for not having other political group activists, so it was easier to sneak her in through the “back door” so to speak.

+1. That was both unnecessary and deceitful, and it undermines the integrity of the entire process. Did they really think people wouldn’t notice?

Reid just keeps making one mistake after another.

[Anonymous]

Sticking a member of the “4 Public Education” group on the committee, and disguising it as a third Woodson appointee (when all but one other pyramids only have two), and not designating anyone from FairFACTS Matters or the FCPA, tells me they don’t really care about hearing all voices or being fair.

Maybe they can appoint who they want but this School Board and Superintendent are awful. But maybe it’s what we’ve come to expect from Reid and a SB led by a political hack like Karl Frisch. You’re in the club if you support all their pet causes, and excluded if you don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which ones were deliberately excluded?

How can FCPS have representatives for all racial demographics while explicitly excluding one?

Doesn't that violate federal law?

which group was explicitly excluded?

[Anonymous]

From the posts, it seems like people are most upset about one extra rep from Woodson that is also in another group and that FairFACTs Matters does not have representation. What are the others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the posts, it seems like people are most upset about one extra rep from Woodson that is also in another group and that FairFACTs Matters does not have representation. What are the others?

Read upthread. Do you plan to do something about it? Or just trolling so you can keep defending the indefensible?

[Anonymous]

Why would you have a group that from the start is against redistricting. They don't care about anything else except stopping it. They won't listen to the results they will just derail the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the posts, it seems like people are most upset about one extra rep from Woodson that is also in another group and that FairFACTs Matters does not have representation. What are the others?

Read upthread. Do you plan to do something about it? Or just trolling so you can keep defending the indefensible?

I'm just trying to figure out why people are so upset about it and how many of the committee members are controversial. I feel like the school system included quite a few of the different voices in our community and I have been ok with the process thus far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you have a group that from the start is against redistricting. They don't care about anything else except stopping it. They won't listen to the results they will just derail the process.

The other groups aren’t against redistricting per se. They want the decisions to be fully informed based on a proper understanding of the underlying data and assumptions, and an appreciation for where growth is occurring and planned in the county and which areas most need additional capital resources.

And, even if they opposed some specific boundary changes, they’d just be one or two voices speaking out. It’s not like they’d have veto power. The fact that you pose this question suggests you think FCPS functions best when it’s an echo chamber, when the evidence from recent years suggests the exact opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the posts, it seems like people are most upset about one extra rep from Woodson that is also in another group and that FairFACTs Matters does not have representation. What are the others?

Read upthread. Do you plan to do something about it? Or just trolling so you can keep defending the indefensible?

I'm just trying to figure out why people are so upset about it and how many of the committee members are controversial. I feel like the school system included quite a few of the different voices in our community and I have been ok with the process thus far.

Sounds disingenuous to me. They are clearly stacking the deck and giving special treatment to some while shutting others out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the posts, it seems like people are most upset about one extra rep from Woodson that is also in another group and that FairFACTs Matters does not have representation. What are the others?

Read upthread. Do you plan to do something about it? Or just trolling so you can keep defending the indefensible?

I'm just trying to figure out why people are so upset about it and how many of the committee members are controversial. I feel like the school system included quite a few of the different voices in our community and I have been ok with the process thus far.

Sounds disingenuous to me. They are clearly stacking the deck and giving special treatment to some while shutting others out.

Nah. I think you're just scared of change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the posts, it seems like people are most upset about one extra rep from Woodson that is also in another group and that FairFACTs Matters does not have representation. What are the others?

Read upthread. Do you plan to do something about it? Or just trolling so you can keep defending the indefensible?

I'm just trying to figure out why people are so upset about it and how many of the committee members are controversial. I feel like the school system included quite a few of the different voices in our community and I have been ok with the process thus far.

Sounds disingenuous to me. They are clearly stacking the deck and giving special treatment to some while shutting others out.

which voices are they shutting out - besides FairFACTS?

[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:

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.

I don’t mind teachers and employees having a voice, but why are there certain racial teachers groups and lgbta employee groups with the sb members’ friends selected?

Are these groups going to be impacted more by the changes? If DCUM equity warriors are to be believed, maybe we need representatives of high SES households on the committee.

Just not sure how the school board members’ friends are going to be impacted more by the changes than Fairfax county residents.

Which friends are on the committees?