School Boundaries and "One Fairfax"

[Anonymous]

Are there a bunch of reactionary tools in Lynchburg promoting a site like “Voices of Fairfax,” which originated in Great Falls? Who needs Jerry Falwell, Jr. when we have plenty of local bigots.

[Anonymous]

The school board needs to be honest.

If they weren't so committed to saying things like "boundary policy is 30 years old and hasn't been revised" when it's already on its seventh version (they are working on 8)

If brabrand could say "one fairfax" to parents when supposedly clearing things up, they would be better off.

[Anonymous]

Question:

Why would they need to change the policy in the first place. Sure, the basic policy was written a long time ago and it has been adjusted somewhat, but the reason for boundaries has not changed: some schools are overcrowded, and a few are underenrolled.
Distance and travel time have significant impacts--for students and for budget. It also affects community support, etc.

So, are they saying that community schools are unimportant? That is is more important to get "equal diversity" in each school? If that is the case, get ready for buses everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to be honest.

If they weren't so committed to saying things like "boundary policy is 30 years old and hasn't been revised" when it's already on its seventh version (they are working on 8)

If brabrand could say "one fairfax" to parents when supposedly clearing things up, they would be better off.

I think the crux of their comments was that they hadn’t taken a hard look in a long time at whether the considerations when making boundary adjustments in current Section IX of Policy 8130.7 are still fit-for-purpose. There are 14 considerations set forth, including “the socioeconomic characteristics of school populations,” but recent boundary changes have highlighted some factors and completely ignored others, and some factors are in conflict with others. It seems like an appropriate thing to re-examine.

As for Brabrand, his Back-to-School message from late August emphasized FCPS’s commitment to equity. Apparently he can’t win with you people: either he mentions equity and “One Fairfax” too often or not enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Why would they need to change the policy in the first place. Sure, the basic policy was written a long time ago and it has been adjusted somewhat, but the reason for boundaries has not changed: some schools are overcrowded, and a few are underenrolled.
Distance and travel time have significant impacts--for students and for budget. It also affects community support, etc.

So, are they saying that community schools are unimportant? That is is more important to get "equal diversity" in each school? If that is the case, get ready for buses everywhere.

See 9:13. When you say there are 14 relevant considerations, some in conflict with others, it’s not clear there is really any guiding framework or consistency.

For example, the current policy cites “contiguous school boundaries” as a consideration, but a recent boundary change involving Fairfax HS created an attendance island. “School feeder patterns” are another consideration, but the recent Thoreau/Jackson redistricting turned Thoreau into a three-way split feeder and ignored the opportunity to align feeder patterns in the Madison pyramid. And, while socioeconomics are identified as a consideration, boundary changes affecting Annandale and Lee HS have concentrated poverty in the schools.

So people look at what’s happened and conclude the current policy isn’t being followed and there have been a lot of unintended consequences. The School Board wants to do better but groups like One Great Falls are having a giant hissy fit that socioeconomics might receive more prominence in a streamlined policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Why would they need to change the policy in the first place. Sure, the basic policy was written a long time ago and it has been adjusted somewhat, but the reason for boundaries has not changed: some schools are overcrowded, and a few are underenrolled.
Distance and travel time have significant impacts--for students and for budget. It also affects community support, etc.

So, are they saying that community schools are unimportant? That is is more important to get "equal diversity" in each school? If that is the case, get ready for buses everywhere.

See 9:13. When you say there are 14 relevant considerations, some in conflict with others, it’s not clear there is really any guiding framework or consistency.

For example, the current policy cites “contiguous school boundaries” as a consideration, but a recent boundary change involving Fairfax HS created an attendance island. “School feeder patterns” are another consideration, but the recent Thoreau/Jackson redistricting turned Thoreau into a three-way split feeder and ignored the opportunity to align feeder patterns in the Madison pyramid. And, while socioeconomics are identified as a consideration, boundary changes affecting Annandale and Lee HS have concentrated poverty in the schools.

So people look at what’s happened and conclude the current policy isn’t being followed and there have been a lot of unintended consequences. The School Board wants to do better but groups like One Great Falls are having a giant hissy fit that socioeconomics might receive more prominence in a streamlined policy.

???You really think this is limited to OneGreatFalls?
And, perhaps if the school board had been following the policy, they would not be having these problems. When have they ever followed policy? They make rules and break them all the time. See the whole process with Stuart/Justice renaming. They had a policy and did not follow it when they did not get the preferred results.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I am pissed that they insist on lying.

If what they are doing would benefit all students, they should just come right out and make the case.

The fact that they refuse to do so just makes it seem a pet project, or perhaps an experiment.

Why can't brabrand say "one Fairfax" and stop pretending that boundary policy needs to be changed because schools are overcrowded?

[Anonymous]

He can say it, just not to our faces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Why would they need to change the policy in the first place. Sure, the basic policy was written a long time ago and it has been adjusted somewhat, but the reason for boundaries has not changed: some schools are overcrowded, and a few are underenrolled.
Distance and travel time have significant impacts--for students and for budget. It also affects community support, etc.

So, are they saying that community schools are unimportant? That is is more important to get "equal diversity" in each school? If that is the case, get ready for buses everywhere.

See 9:13. When you say there are 14 relevant considerations, some in conflict with others, it’s not clear there is really any guiding framework or consistency.

For example, the current policy cites “contiguous school boundaries” as a consideration, but a recent boundary change involving Fairfax HS created an attendance island. “School feeder patterns” are another consideration, but the recent Thoreau/Jackson redistricting turned Thoreau into a three-way split feeder and ignored the opportunity to align feeder patterns in the Madison pyramid. And, while socioeconomics are identified as a consideration, boundary changes affecting Annandale and Lee HS have concentrated poverty in the schools.

So people look at what’s happened and conclude the current policy isn’t being followed and there have been a lot of unintended consequences. The School Board wants to do better but groups like One Great Falls are having a giant hissy fit that socioeconomics might receive more prominence in a streamlined policy.

???You really think this is limited to OneGreatFalls?
And, perhaps if the school board had been following the policy, they would not be having these problems. When have they ever followed policy? They make rules and break them all the time. See the whole process with Stuart/Justice renaming. They had a policy and did not follow it when they did not get the preferred results.

There was a lawsuit claiming the policy was not followed when Stuart was renamed. That lawsuit was tossed.

The local GOP is desperate to try and win some local elections. So of course they are pushing the anti-One Fairfax agenda, but the people most hyped up about boundary changes are the Great Falls people freaking out about getting moved to Herndon some day.

[Anonymous]

There was a lawsuit claiming the policy was not followed when Stuart was renamed. That lawsuit was tossed.

I don't know anything about the lawsuit, but the policy was not followed. And, School Board members planned it privately. Emails were released that proved that. Is it illegal? I don't know, but it is certainly against FCPS policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There was a lawsuit claiming the policy was not followed when Stuart was renamed. That lawsuit was tossed.

I don't know anything about the lawsuit, but the policy was not followed. And, School Board members planned it privately. Emails were released that proved that. Is it illegal? I don't know, but it is certainly against FCPS policy.

Just because conservatives don’t always get what they want does not mean there was a conspiracy or an impropriety.

If there were violations of open meetings laws, the School Board’s action could have been overturned, but it was not. And if these emails were really private or secret, you wouldn’t know about them or be discussing them here.

Whether it’s the renaming of a school or the adjustment of boundaries, we have an elected School Board charged with making decisions that should be in the best interests of students as a whole. Not what a straw poll says or what a bunch of old people in Great Falls prefer.

[Anonymous]

Confederate names are embarrassing. Stop living in the 19th Century, Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Why would they need to change the policy in the first place. Sure, the basic policy was written a long time ago and it has been adjusted somewhat, but the reason for boundaries has not changed: some schools are overcrowded, and a few are underenrolled.
Distance and travel time have significant impacts--for students and for budget. It also affects community support, etc.

So, are they saying that community schools are unimportant? That is is more important to get "equal diversity" in each school? If that is the case, get ready for buses everywhere.

See 9:13. When you say there are 14 relevant considerations, some in conflict with others, it’s not clear there is really any guiding framework or consistency.

For example, the current policy cites “contiguous school boundaries” as a consideration, but a recent boundary change involving Fairfax HS created an attendance island. “School feeder patterns” are another consideration, but the recent Thoreau/Jackson redistricting turned Thoreau into a three-way split feeder and ignored the opportunity to align feeder patterns in the Madison pyramid. And, while socioeconomics are identified as a consideration, boundary changes affecting Annandale and Lee HS have concentrated poverty in the schools.

So people look at what’s happened and conclude the current policy isn’t being followed and there have been a lot of unintended consequences. The School Board wants to do better but groups like One Great Falls are having a giant hissy fit that socioeconomics might receive more prominence in a streamlined policy.

If the School Board wanted to better then they would not have been making the situation worse over the last 10-15 years. Karen Corbett-Sanders could have proposed moving West Potomac students to Mt. Vernon, but instead is asking taxpayers to fund a ridiculous addition at West Potomac. I don't see that as wanting to do better. Vote them out, vote them all out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I am pissed that they insist on lying.

If what they are doing would benefit all students, they should just come right out and make the case.

The fact that they refuse to do so just makes it seem a pet project, or perhaps an experiment.

Why can't brabrand say "one Fairfax" and stop pretending that boundary policy needs to be changed because schools are overcrowded?

They obviously don't believe what they werr doing is defensible.

That's why they won't put it all out there and that's why they stopped talking about it. That's why they passed that nothing of an amendment to the CIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to be honest.

If they weren't so committed to saying things like "boundary policy is 30 years old and hasn't been revised" when it's already on its seventh version (they are working on 8)

If brabrand could say "one fairfax" to parents when supposedly clearing things up, they would be better off.

I think the crux of their comments was that they hadn’t taken a hard look in a long time at whether the considerations when making boundary adjustments in current Section IX of Policy 8130.7 are still fit-for-purpose. There are 14 considerations set forth, including “the socioeconomic characteristics of school populations,” but recent boundary changes have highlighted some factors and completely ignored others, and some factors are in conflict with others. It seems like an appropriate thing to re-examine.

As for Brabrand, his Back-to-School message from late August emphasized FCPS’s commitment to equity. Apparently he can’t win with you people: either he mentions equity and “One Fairfax” too often or not enough.

The primary focus for school zoni g should be distance/shortest possible commute or bus rides, and capacity.

Period.