FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

Not just the school board, Gatehouse too.

And the aging population of Fairfax County will keep voting these people in because they show up on the correct sample ballot and parrot the correct talking points. Yay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

DP. Who is dismissing the other “side”s thoughts? Seems like you may want to look in the mirror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

Are you saying that FCPS has schools that aren’t successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities and sports. Not sure how boundaries fix those problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

Not sure what to make of this. Are you contending this doesn’t describe the schools for which these families are currently zoned? And, if so, why would it surprise you if others don’t want to be reassigned to those schools?

I’m all for additional outreach, but less in favor of transparently leading questions or School Board members purporting to speak for “those who aren’t being heard” when it’s really just a pretext to impose their own preferences on everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they will shift academies from Chantilly to Centreville, if the expansion/renovation happens. Seems like a smart idea...although some will complain cause that "loophole" will close.

There's no loophole now. No one is allowed to transfer to CHS out of boundary for any reason. Its full.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

Not sure what to make of this. Are you contending this doesn’t describe the schools for which these families are currently zoned? And, if so, why would it surprise you if others don’t want to be reassigned to those schools?

I’m all for additional outreach, but less in favor of transparently leading questions or School Board members purporting to speak for “those who aren’t being heard” when it’s really just a pretext to impose their own preferences on everyone else.

Yeah, is the prior poster admitting that the school board is wasting taxpayer money on these surveys?

If she just wants to pretend that the public’s overwhelming opposition to boundary changes doesn’t matter, then why do the school board members continually harp on how extensive public outreach will be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Carson is split feeder into Westfields, South Lakes, Oakton and Chantilly. Four school split feeder.

Floris ES is split feeder into Westfields, Chantilly, and South Lakes. Three school split feeder at elementary school level.

Where does any of Floris ES feed into Chantilly? Which neighborhood? I'm not questioning it, but I am instead just interested in figuring that one out.

Carson is a disaster. The obvious answer is to eliminate the AA center at Carson and to send all of the Chantilly bound students to Franklin for middle school.

They also should change all of the Discovery Square area to Oak Hill, Franklin, and Chantilly and move the Highland Mews kids to Carson since that neighborhood is almost on Maclaren Road, which is the same road Carson is on (just on the other side of Centreville Road).

Then there is the issue with Emerald Chase. That neighborhood goes to Oak Hill, Carson, and Westfield, which is weird. They should either be sent to Floris, Carson, and Westfield or to Oak Hill, Franklin, and Chantilly.

Next is the issue with Franklin Farm. One neighborhood, even a huge neighborhood like Franklin Farm, should not go to three different elementary schools (Crossfield, Navy, and Oak Hill), two middle schools (Franklin and Carson), and two high schools (Oakton and Chantilly).

The entire west side of the county needs significant review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

Well we have 3 ways of making sure all kids attend safe schools with lots of EC activities. 1, fund and staff all these activities to the greatest extent possible at all schools. But the kids at Lewis for example still have most sports teams, and AP and IB classes. Do they have a newspaper and a yearbook? A debate team? What specifically are they missing?

2, bus kids from underprivileged neighborhoods to richer schools. Which is all fine and good, but don’t underestimate the effects of a long bus commute on your kids. Ask anyone who grew up in a far-flung exurb or rural area who had a 30 minute+ bus ride on top of waiting at the school for 30+ minutes for the bus to even arrive. And if this was some kind of application process, who knows what kind of applications they’d get. A lot of kids and families just want to go to schools closer to home to minimize disruptions.

3, bus kids from wealthy neighborhoods to underprivileged schools. Does this help create “safe” schools with lots of “opportunities?” I’d argue no. But it does balance numbers and bring up scores and so everyone looks better on paper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

Sorry, I’m too busy teaching these EXACT SAME kids all day long to join in on this consistently. As an educator, it is a completely crap policy to move kids in their middle of their high school career. Just look at The mental health social emotional stance of the board who claims to put relationships first in education. And then watch as the slashe through the relationships high school kids have built over the last 10 years of this 15 year lives. Color of the kids sling should not dictate whether a kids gets to keep long standing relationships and college resume building.
As a teacher of low income kids and a parent of middle income kids I can say this is a hurtful policy for individual kids. Screw the board for not standing by their values.
So hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

Sorry, I’m too busy teaching these EXACT SAME kids all day long to join in on this consistently. As an educator, it is a completely crap policy to move kids in their middle of their high school career. Just look at The mental health social emotional stance of the board who claims to put relationships first in education. And then watch as the slashe through the relationships high school kids have built over the last 10 years of this 15 year lives. Color of the kids sling should not dictate whether a kids gets to keep long standing relationships and college resume building.
As a teacher of low income kids and a parent of middle income kids I can say this is a hurtful policy for individual kids. Screw the board for not standing by their values.
So hypocritical.

Lots of typos but you should get the gist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

Sorry, I’m too busy teaching these EXACT SAME kids all day long to join in on this consistently. As an educator, it is a completely crap policy to move kids in their middle of their high school career. Just look at The mental health social emotional stance of the board who claims to put relationships first in education. And then watch as the slashe through the relationships high school kids have built over the last 10 years of this 15 year lives. Color of the kids sling should not dictate whether a kids gets to keep long standing relationships and college resume building.
As a teacher of low income kids and a parent of middle income kids I can say this is a hurtful policy for individual kids. Screw the board for not standing by their values.
So hypocritical.

The PP seems to be saying that boundary changes will cause some weird utopia to occur. Such a farce.

Despite her “guarantee” that “they’d be fully on board,” I think it’s very likely that many of those families would not be interested in having other kids come in and take their opportunities in “academic clubs, activities, and sports” and likely aren’t interested in leaving their friend groups to move to a different school.

Her post basically boils down to: I know what is best for these marginal families, trust me, so the rest of you can get bent. I fear the school board thinks that way too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

Not sure what to make of this. Are you contending this doesn’t describe the schools for which these families are currently zoned? And, if so, why would it surprise you if others don’t want to be reassigned to those schools?

I’m all for additional outreach, but less in favor of transparently leading questions or School Board members purporting to speak for “those who aren’t being heard” when it’s really just a pretext to impose their own preferences on everyone else.

Yeah, is the prior poster admitting that the school board is wasting taxpayer money on these surveys?

If she just wants to pretend that the public’s overwhelming opposition to boundary changes doesn’t matter, then why do the school board members continually harp on how extensive public outreach will be?

“Overwhelming opposition” from who exactly (besides the FairFacts Matters folks)? Because the voters seem to overwhelmingly support the school board leadership. Also, how can you oppose a plan that hasn’t been developed yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, it will be the board dictating, not your neighbors but good on you for volunteering. Someone has to serve as checkbox for “community engagement.”

NP. So you'd rather complain on an anonymous board than actually do something? Got it.

The PP is the attitude of all the FCPS employees who hate FCPS but who hate parents even more. There are lots of them and they are chronically online.

Well, we had Ricardy Anderson complaining yesterday about the "squeaky wheels" in the community and the new consultant essentially saying the survey results from the work of the prior consultant (in which there was strong opposition to boundary changes) can be disregarded because the respondents weren't sufficiently representative.

The consistent message from the School Board is to shut up and just rely on them to channel the wishes of the community, although all the evidence from the past is that they act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others.

If you went door-to-door in disadvantaged communities and asked families if they'd like their kids to attend successful, safe schools with hundreds of opportunities in academic clubs, activities, and sports, I guarantee you they'd be fully on board.

But your side wants to dismiss their thoughts. Just because they don't answer email surveys and don't have the luxury of a 9-to-5 office gig with time to attend evening community meetings, doesn't mean their "culture" devalues education of their children.

Not sure what to make of this. Are you contending this doesn’t describe the schools for which these families are currently zoned? And, if so, why would it surprise you if others don’t want to be reassigned to those schools?

I’m all for additional outreach, but less in favor of transparently leading questions or School Board members purporting to speak for “those who aren’t being heard” when it’s really just a pretext to impose their own preferences on everyone else.

Yeah, is the prior poster admitting that the school board is wasting taxpayer money on these surveys?

If she just wants to pretend that the public’s overwhelming opposition to boundary changes doesn’t matter, then why do the school board members continually harp on how extensive public outreach will be?

“Overwhelming opposition” from who exactly (besides the FairFacts Matters folks)? Because the voters seem to overwhelmingly support the school board leadership. Also, how can you oppose a plan that hasn’t been developed yet?

No the voters didn’t get a chance to vote in the school board on this issue. No one on either side brought it up during the election season.