Tired of Name Changes/Bad Planning - Vote NO on School Bonds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the board ignored their own regulations, unnecessarily distressed the community, and diverted attention from other important objectives in this renaming process is sufficient evidence that they are not capable of administering an additional $315M.

So you're saying the board is to blame for the roaring opposition that met the proposal to name Stuart after someone or something, other than a traitor?

The issue didn't have to be controversial. Proponents sensibly argued that Stuart shouldn't be named after a Confederate general anymore. The process got out of control only after so many people grabbed their proverbial pitchforks and mounted massive resistance against the name change. The outcry from even the suggestion to change the name put the board in a jam: keeping the name would unacceptably signal their approval of commemorating a traitor, but changing the name would incense Lost Cause believers and others who still hold Confederate generals like Stuart in high regard.

Regardless, I'm having a hard time understanding why the board's handling of difficult social issue like this has any bearing on how they would properly allocate capital funds. The actual expense involved in changing Stuart's name is a rounding error in the bond proposal. If you have a bona fide problem with how the board proposes to deploy bond funds on a large scale, such as building a new school versus expanding existing facilities, then sure, a no vote may make sense. But it sounds like you're mostly mad about the Stuart issue and grasping at other excuses to support making an indiscriminate political statement about it.

Do you not get that this costs almost a million bucks? That money could be much better spent. JEB could have been dropped and all references to him could have pretty much been eliminated. Great learning experience for the kids--could have learned about the Civil War, Massive Resistance, etc. But, the name would not have honored Jeb any longer. and, if it had been done over a few years (remember, we are already two years into this) it would not have required much in the way of additional funds.

But, you obviously got what you wanted and the students got a name that was not selected by anyone but the School Board. A name that is used for some juvie schools, that is already being subject to demeaning because of the demographics of the school (Just-ICE) and others who are calling it Bufort T. Justice. Great choice, Sandy.

Two years ago, the SB could have easily instituted a policy to drop JEB and refer to the school as Stuart. Money saved: @$1million

I liked “Smokey and the Bandit” when I was a kid!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was exactly this mean spirited vote against our interests to prove our point crap that got us Trump. The school bonds have nothing to do with the name change. And if they don’t pass the bonds, they aren’t going to build a Western County school. They are going to stuff more kids in less space in Madison.

Look where not expanding, or not being able to agree on expanding has gotten APS. Two tracks schools? No thanks.

Sanity! Thank you. Totally agree. I'm voting yes in the bonds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JEB could have been dropped and all references to him could have pretty much been eliminated. Great learning experience for the kids--could have learned about the Civil War, Massive Resistance, etc. But, the name would not have honored Jeb any longer. and, if it had been done over a few years (remember, we are already two years into this) it would not have required much in the way of additional funds.

"I think it's time to rename Joseph V. Stalin High."

"But that could be expensive. How about... Stalin High?"

"OUR WORK HERE IS DONE."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was exactly this mean spirited vote against our interests to prove our point crap that got us Trump. The school bonds have nothing to do with the name change. And if they don’t pass the bonds, they aren’t going to build a Western County school. They are going to stuff more kids in less space in Madison.

Look where not expanding, or not being able to agree on expanding has gotten APS. Two tracks schools? No thanks.

Sanity! Thank you. Totally agree. I'm voting yes in the bonds.

+1

[Anonymous]

to 17:56 " If you have a bona fide problem with how the board proposes to deploy bond funds on a large scale, such as building a new school versus expanding existing facilities, then sure, a no vote may make sense. But it sounds like you're mostly mad about the Stuart issue and grasping at other excuses to support making an indiscriminate political statement about it. "

I'm concerned about certain members of the board acting inappropriately: without regard for their own regulations, the concerns of large majorities of the community, due process, and open communications. The outcome of the renaming is indicative of a board that is largely out of touch with their constituents. If you believe that JEB Stuart is a traitor and his name simply MUST be removed from the school, that is your one vote - there were many hundreds more than yours that expressed differing views. To repeatedly assert that you have the moral high ground and that any other opinion is immoral is immaterial in our representative democratic system (although you are welcome to your opinion). The school board's own regulations stipulated a process - that they willfully ignored - on several occasions. And then they simply ignored the votes of the district residents. This indicates a severe lack of judgement and a hubris that is simply unacceptable - "I know better so I will decide" is something that Trump or Hillary might assert (or Stalin or Mao). Fortunately, we live in a country where there are checks and balances and the will of the board can be challenged and votes will be held to reconstitute the board periodically. One other check is the requirement that funding for capital spending be approved by bond referendums. Given that there are already $630M of approved spending that have not been allocated it is appropriate to ask why the board is seeking an additional $315M now. In all events, the judgement of the board has been shown to be lacking on many occasions and issues and this alone is sufficient to warrant withholding additional funds. I vote NO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to read some history, rather than spout the latest catch phrases from your mom's group on Facebook. Summarizing Stuart as a traitor is incredibly naive.

But is it inaccurate? Because I'm pretty sure it's accurate to call Stuart a traitor--that's what you are, by definition, when you lead an armed conflict on behalf of a secessionist cause.

You were right to suggest that I read up on General Stuart's history. I have learned all sorts of fascinating things from reviewing his Wikipedia page. For example, did you know that General Lee dispatched him to put down the abolitionist takeover of the armory at Harpers Ferry? Or that his father-in-law continued to serve the United States Army after Stuart had turncoated? Or that he changed his son's name so that his son would no longer have his father-in-law's namesake (a certain irony there)? Stuart's peers venerated him as a brilliant cavalry commander, but I'm guessing that his tactical brilliance wasn't why the new high school in Munson Hill was named after him in 1959--the year after Virginia's governor closed nine schools that had been ordered to integrate, and the same year that after segregationists lost federal and state court cases the schools were reopened, with some admitting handfuls of black students.

I love unicorns!

[Anonymous]

The connection I see is that the School Board treated the Stuart renaming as a major priority, whereas the discussions relating to the capital projects were shallow and largely consisted of SB members accepting without many questions proposals by the facilities staff that will make an increasing number of FCPS high schools huge facilities similar to the schools in Prince William, at the same time as Loudoun differentiates itself by building new, smaller schools that are closer in size to the size that FCPS not that long ago said was ideal. At the same time, despite this purported focus on equity, FCPS is letting schools like Lee and Mount Vernon go down the drain. I think their priorities consist of appeasing various interest groups rather than looking out for typical kids, and will vote against the bond to send a message that they need to stop pretending to be SJWs and start getting back to the basics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about certain members of the board acting inappropriately: without regard for their own regulations, the concerns of large majorities of the community, due process, and open communications. The outcome of the renaming is indicative of a board that is largely out of touch with their constituents. If you believe that JEB Stuart is a traitor and his name simply MUST be removed from the school, that is your one vote - there were many hundreds more than yours that expressed differing views. To repeatedly assert that you have the moral high ground and that any other opinion is immoral is immaterial in our representative democratic system (although you are welcome to your opinion). The school board's own regulations stipulated a process - that they willfully ignored - on several occasions. And then they simply ignored the votes of the district residents. This indicates a severe lack of judgement and a hubris that is simply unacceptable - "I know better so I will decide" is something that Trump or Hillary might assert (or Stalin or Mao). Fortunately, we live in a country where there are checks and balances and the will of the board can be challenged and votes will be held to reconstitute the board periodically. One other check is the requirement that funding for capital spending be approved by bond referendums. Given that there are already $630M of approved spending that have not been allocated it is appropriate to ask why the board is seeking an additional $315M now. In all events, the judgement of the board has been shown to be lacking on many occasions and issues and this alone is sufficient to warrant withholding additional funds. I vote NO.

The short version: "I'm mad at the process and the result of the process to name Stuart after something other than a Confederate general, and I'm going to take out that frustration by voting to deny access to hundreds of millions of dollars in funding that would be used to improve our schools. PROBLEM SOLVED."

Also, you didn't really mean to suggest that "large majorities" supported keeping the name, do you? Because if I'm remembering right, the vast majority of public votes cast were for other names. So there was a popular consensus around "something besides Stuart"; the disagreement was over which alternative would take its place.

And again, there would have been no controversy had there not been so many people who rose up in defense of continuing to name the school after a Confederate general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing a school name so it’s no longer a homage to a Confederate general?! The horror!

You’re really going to vote against $315 million in much-needed money for important capital projects, at historically low interest rates, directed at improving children’s education—because you can’t stand the thought of investing a fraction of a percent of that amount so we’re not commemorating someone who committed treason and waged war against the United States?

Just want to make sure we’re clear on that.

I'm not who youre adressing, but yes. I'm voting no. Screw the name changes. And get rid of the illegal students before you ask me for another dime.

OF FFS. They can’t get rid of illegal students. Because the Supreme Court. Plyer v. Doe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The connection I see is that the School Board treated the Stuart renaming as a major priority, whereas the discussions relating to the capital projects were shallow and largely consisted of SB members accepting without many questions proposals by the facilities staff that will make an increasing number of FCPS high schools huge facilities similar to the schools in Prince William, at the same time as Loudoun differentiates itself by building new, smaller schools that are closer in size to the size that FCPS not that long ago said was ideal. At the same time, despite this purported focus on equity, FCPS is letting schools like Lee and Mount Vernon go down the drain. I think their priorities consist of appeasing various interest groups rather than looking out for typical kids, and will vote against the bond to send a message that they need to stop pretending to be SJWs and start getting back to the basics.

Where's the evidence that capital projects discussions would have been any more rigorous if the renaming had been handled differently? The proposed size of new Fairfax schools relative to new schools elsewhere has nothing to do with renaming Stuart, nor does the board's focus on Lee and Mt. Vernon. The board can walk and chew gum, and while the renaming controversy drew a lot of press and public attention, it couldn't have been more than a tiny fraction of the board's total time.

Again, the board doesn't deserve blame because a vocal minority raised a fit in opposition to the proposal to rename Stuart.

Voting against the bond does send a message, just not quite the one you had in mind: that you care more about avenging your grievance than ensuring that our schools have the resources to best serve our children.

[Anonymous]

Again, the board doesn't deserve blame because a vocal minority raised a fit in opposition to the proposal to rename Stuart.

You have that backwards......it was a vocal minority who raised a fit demanding to change the name. Far more wished it to stay the same.

[Anonymous]

The School bonds have never benefited my kids and I plan to vote against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The connection I see is that the School Board treated the Stuart renaming as a major priority, whereas the discussions relating to the capital projects were shallow and largely consisted of SB members accepting without many questions proposals by the facilities staff that will make an increasing number of FCPS high schools huge facilities similar to the schools in Prince William, at the same time as Loudoun differentiates itself by building new, smaller schools that are closer in size to the size that FCPS not that long ago said was ideal. At the same time, despite this purported focus on equity, FCPS is letting schools like Lee and Mount Vernon go down the drain. I think their priorities consist of appeasing various interest groups rather than looking out for typical kids, and will vote against the bond to send a message that they need to stop pretending to be SJWs and start getting back to the basics.

Where's the evidence that capital projects discussions would have been any more rigorous if the renaming had been handled differently? The proposed size of new Fairfax schools relative to new schools elsewhere has nothing to do with renaming Stuart, nor does the board's focus on Lee and Mt. Vernon. The board can walk and chew gum, and while the renaming controversy drew a lot of press and public attention, it couldn't have been more than a tiny fraction of the board's total time.

Again, the board doesn't deserve blame because a vocal minority raised a fit in opposition to the proposal to rename Stuart.

Voting against the bond does send a message, just not quite the one you had in mind: that you care more about avenging your grievance than ensuring that our schools have the resources to best serve our children.

The burden isn't on me to prove that the School Board would have scrutinized their ill-conceived capital spending priorities more closely had the Stuart name change not been on the agenda, when it is in fact clear that the priorities are misplaced, yet received little scrutiny, all while the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming (with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board) and then essentially opting for a "concept" name that hadn't even been voted upon by the community.

This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face, but instead sending a clear message that we cannot trust the current Board as a steward of our tax dollars until they clean up their act. Vote No on this bond referendum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The connection I see is that the School Board treated the Stuart renaming as a major priority, whereas the discussions relating to the capital projects were shallow and largely consisted of SB members accepting without many questions proposals by the facilities staff that will make an increasing number of FCPS high schools huge facilities similar to the schools in Prince William, at the same time as Loudoun differentiates itself by building new, smaller schools that are closer in size to the size that FCPS not that long ago said was ideal. At the same time, despite this purported focus on equity, FCPS is letting schools like Lee and Mount Vernon go down the drain. I think their priorities consist of appeasing various interest groups rather than looking out for typical kids, and will vote against the bond to send a message that they need to stop pretending to be SJWs and start getting back to the basics.

Where's the evidence that capital projects discussions would have been any more rigorous if the renaming had been handled differently? The proposed size of new Fairfax schools relative to new schools elsewhere has nothing to do with renaming Stuart, nor does the board's focus on Lee and Mt. Vernon. The board can walk and chew gum, and while the renaming controversy drew a lot of press and public attention, it couldn't have been more than a tiny fraction of the board's total time.

Again, the board doesn't deserve blame because a vocal minority raised a fit in opposition to the proposal to rename Stuart.

Voting against the bond does send a message, just not quite the one you had in mind: that you care more about avenging your grievance than ensuring that our schools have the resources to best serve our children.

The burden isn't on me to prove that the School Board would have scrutinized their ill-conceived capital spending priorities more closely had the Stuart name change not been on the agenda, when it is in fact clear that the priorities are misplaced, yet received little scrutiny, all while the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming (with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board) and then essentially opting for a "concept" name that hadn't even been voted upon by the community.

This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face, but instead sending a clear message that we cannot trust the current Board as a steward of our tax dollars until they clean up their act. Vote No on this bond referendum.

Here is the thing. FCPS serves over 180,000 kids from every conceivable background in the world. And they all need different things. From kids who enter high school without speaking a word of English to the kids who enter TJ. The kids in wheelchairs to the kids who get D1 athletics scholarships. And in a system that diverse, with a range of needs that broad, you are always going to find something to hate if you look hard enough. Last year, it was high school start times. Before that, it was eliminating 1/2 day Monday’s. This year it’s Stuart. It is always about IB. It is often about my kid did not get into AAP. Very often on this board a snit about TJ.

I get it. You don’t like the Stuart name change. GTFU. The county is growing, and they are running out of seats. They are, from a big picture perspective, doing very well. And no group this diverse is every going to agree on the details. Which is why we act like adults and compromise.

Now, a school system that has real problems would be ACPS:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/679683.page

Anyone want their kids there right now? I didn’t think so.



And a school system that should provide us an object lesson in why we pass bonds build and renovate schools would be APS:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/649404.page

And the county IS using your money wisely. They have to renovate schools like Lee and Falls Church anyway. They are falling apart. Expanding them at the same time makes the most financial sense, both in terms of upfront costs, and in terms of not need a new administration, and all the other extra that go with a school. I agree that smaller high schools are better. However, new builds are not cheaper. Especially since decent parcels of land in good locations are expensive.

Grow up. Get over the Stuart name change. And give your kids a decent building to go to school in. SMH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JEB could have been dropped and all references to him could have pretty much been eliminated. Great learning experience for the kids--could have learned about the Civil War, Massive Resistance, etc. But, the name would not have honored Jeb any longer. and, if it had been done over a few years (remember, we are already two years into this) it would not have required much in the way of additional funds.

"I think it's time to rename Joseph V. Stalin High."

"But that could be expensive. How about... Stalin High?"

"OUR WORK HERE IS DONE."

Exactly