FCPS School Board candidates in Dranesville

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As Republicans go, Karloutsos is not the worst, but it's disappointing to see how she now traffics in the same dog whistles as the rest of them.

Dog whistles? Pat Hynes and Janie Strauss were blowing bull horns. Loud and clear. They just did not realize that they were being heard outside their little cabal.

"Cabal"? LOL. Soon we'll be hearing from the Rs about how George Soros must be involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As Republicans go, Karloutsos is not the worst, but it's disappointing to see how she now traffics in the same dog whistles as the rest of them.

Dog whistles? Pat Hynes and Janie Strauss were blowing bull horns. Loud and clear. They just did not realize that they were being heard outside their little cabal.

"Cabal"? LOL. Soon we'll be hearing from the Rs about how George Soros must be involved.

Really? Sounds to me like it fits. The plot was to change the boundary policy and start making changes with little community input.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cabal
Definition of cabal (Entry 1 of 2)
1: the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government)
also : a group engaged in such schemes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As Republicans go, Karloutsos is not the worst, but it's disappointing to see how she now traffics in the same dog whistles as the rest of them.

Dog whistles? Pat Hynes and Janie Strauss were blowing bull horns. Loud and clear. They just did not realize that they were being heard outside their little cabal.

"Cabal"? LOL. Soon we'll be hearing from the Rs about how George Soros must be involved.

Really? Sounds to me like it fits. The plot was to change the boundary policy and start making changes with little community input.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cabal
Definition of cabal (Entry 1 of 2)
1: the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government)
also : a group engaged in such schemes

There isn't much secrecy involved here; the "plot" Voices of Fairfax has contrived is based on splicing snippets from videos of public meetings and social media posts to push a false narrative.

In fact, one of the main goals is to ensure community input before changing boundaries. That is why the moratorium was placed on administrative boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As Republicans go, Karloutsos is not the worst, but it's disappointing to see how she now traffics in the same dog whistles as the rest of them.

Dog whistles? Pat Hynes and Janie Strauss were blowing bull horns. Loud and clear. They just did not realize that they were being heard outside their little cabal.

"Cabal"? LOL. Soon we'll be hearing from the Rs about how George Soros must be involved.

Really? Sounds to me like it fits. The plot was to change the boundary policy and start making changes with little community input.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cabal
Definition of cabal (Entry 1 of 2)
1: the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government)
also : a group engaged in such schemes

Yes there are schemes and skullduggery in a county wide school division. Look no further than the bond referendum. Undercapacity and overcapacity. There is absolutely no justification for West Potomac addition and that was verified by the Magisterial District Members, Dan Storck-D Mount Vernon and Jeff McKay-D Lee. No Republicans involved in that flagrant waste of money and limited resources. It's not for Amazon nor is it because of some mysterious need that never materialized for military families as purported by Corbett Sanders-D.

On the Ardavan Mobesheri thread. Big plus to him that he's even willing to engage with anybody and online on this junk. That makes 2 elected people on the BOS and 1 school board candidate. The open capacity that exists now in eastern Fairfax County is so ludicrous that FPAC suggested putting in a magnet school:
FCPS dashboard has Madison 2018-19 program capacity at 2112 and the CIP has design capacity after the addition at 2400. Max increase 288. Sept 2019 enrollment was 2272.

The real surprise on 2019 bond referendum capacity enhancements is West Potomac - that goes up to 3000 after the addition adding 772. Mount Vernon + West Potomac have a surplus now and if the addition existed it would be over 800.

All those numbers are no spin-just objective info on resource stewardship.

Then go to Western Fairfax County. Did any candidates or current school board members or board of supervisor candidates or currently in office actually tell groups of parents, constituents at meet and greets or back to school nights, anywhere that FCPS plans to build a high school on Hutchison Park? I don't mean select small groups or individuals or FCPS administrators.

There is major need for a new high school in Western Fairfax County. Was this something that just occurred? No. County comprehensive plans and CIP's show the future need for an Oak Hill area HS and/or a site in north Reston. Pick a decade. These documents exist. Since anything showed up on such documents Carson was built and operational. That's a middle school so where's the high school? Fairfax County sold the land zoned for a school to the Saudis : https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/with-saudi-school-headed-to-herndon-future-of-mt-vernon-site-up-in-the-air/2015/12/07/07bf9b6e-9d0f-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html

So the old Mount Vernon HS site becomes a community center - where's the Reston special tax district treatment by this county? People in the Town of Herndon also get 2 property taxes-- Town and County.

[Anonymous]

In fact, one of the main goals is to ensure community input before changing boundaries. That is why the moratorium was placed on administrative boundary changes.

Not so sure that was going to be significant in the new policy. Didn't Schultz bring that up in the work session?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In fact, one of the main goals is to ensure community input before changing boundaries. That is why the moratorium was placed on administrative boundary changes.

Not so sure that was going to be significant in the new policy. Didn't Schultz bring that up in the work session?

Administrative boundary changes even for new and unoccupied housing are totally gone in the draft 8130. 100+ houses at 7 and Towlston slated for Spring Hill not nearby under capacity Colvin Run. FCSB needs scoping, intro meeting, and 3 public meetings on the faciltiies plural options, plus some work sessions and regular meetings? All that to occur after houses occupied and mega trailers? Then there's Top Golf becoming residences and that might be n the Edison pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In fact, one of the main goals is to ensure community input before changing boundaries. That is why the moratorium was placed on administrative boundary changes.

Not so sure that was going to be significant in the new policy. Didn't Schultz bring that up in the work session?

Administrative boundary changes even for new and unoccupied housing are totally gone in the draft 8130. 100+ houses at 7 and Towlston slated for Spring Hill not nearby under capacity Colvin Run. FCSB needs scoping, intro meeting, and 3 public meetings on the faciltiies plural options, plus some work sessions and regular meetings? All that to occur after houses occupied and mega trailers? Then there's Top Golf becoming residences and that might be n the Edison pyramid.

Not sure that's the right outcome; one would like to think the administrative reassignment of a new development out of an overcrowded school to an under-enrolled school could be done expeditiously.

Unfortunately, when the track record includes using the administrative route to move kids out of an under-enrolled school like Lee to West Springfield (and then getting another similar request from a different group of Lee parents), you can see why Brabrand wanted to change the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As Republicans go, Karloutsos is not the worst, but it's disappointing to see how she now traffics in the same dog whistles as the rest of them.

Dog whistles? Pat Hynes and Janie Strauss were blowing bull horns. Loud and clear. They just did not realize that they were being heard outside their little cabal.

"Cabal"? LOL. Soon we'll be hearing from the Rs about how George Soros must be involved.

Really? Sounds to me like it fits. The plot was to change the boundary policy and start making changes with little community input.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cabal
Definition of cabal (Entry 1 of 2)
1: the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government)
also : a group engaged in such schemes

Yes there are schemes and skullduggery in a county wide school division. Look no further than the bond referendum. Undercapacity and overcapacity. There is absolutely no justification for West Potomac addition and that was verified by the Magisterial District Members, Dan Storck-D Mount Vernon and Jeff McKay-D Lee. No Republicans involved in that flagrant waste of money and limited resources. It's not for Amazon nor is it because of some mysterious need that never materialized for military families as purported by Corbett Sanders-D.

On the Ardavan Mobesheri thread. Big plus to him that he's even willing to engage with anybody and online on this junk. That makes 2 elected people on the BOS and 1 school board candidate. The open capacity that exists now in eastern Fairfax County is so ludicrous that FPAC suggested putting in a magnet school:
FCPS dashboard has Madison 2018-19 program capacity at 2112 and the CIP has design capacity after the addition at 2400. Max increase 288. Sept 2019 enrollment was 2272.

The real surprise on 2019 bond referendum capacity enhancements is West Potomac - that goes up to 3000 after the addition adding 772. Mount Vernon + West Potomac have a surplus now and if the addition existed it would be over 800.

All those numbers are no spin-just objective info on resource stewardship.

Then go to Western Fairfax County. Did any candidates or current school board members or board of supervisor candidates or currently in office actually tell groups of parents, constituents at meet and greets or back to school nights, anywhere that FCPS plans to build a high school on Hutchison Park? I don't mean select small groups or individuals or FCPS administrators.

There is major need for a new high school in Western Fairfax County. Was this something that just occurred? No. County comprehensive plans and CIP's show the future need for an Oak Hill area HS and/or a site in north Reston. Pick a decade. These documents exist. Since anything showed up on such documents Carson was built and operational. That's a middle school so where's the high school? Fairfax County sold the land zoned for a school to the Saudis : https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/with-saudi-school-headed-to-herndon-future-of-mt-vernon-site-up-in-the-air/2015/12/07/07bf9b6e-9d0f-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html

So the old Mount Vernon HS site becomes a community center - where's the Reston special tax district treatment by this county? People in the Town of Herndon also get 2 property taxes-- Town and County.

I am always available to engage with my constituents. I am not afraid of social media (I just wish we could all be civil about it). I have had many meets and greets, many one on ones. I am always open to meeting wherever it is convenient for people. I am open to phone calls which I do often. I am an educator, I have taught over 50 classes and have had over 2000 students over the past 17 years. I have a listening ear to every idea and perspective. Please join me in my thread to talk about Dranesville, schools, over crowding, etc. Come with your ideas, your perspectives, and your open mind. Come even with your politics. I want politics out of our schools. I want candidates to play by the rules. But I do listen to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big story of this election is how a group of Langley parents from the Forestville ES part of Great Falls got so agitated over a rumor that they might get moved back to Herndon some day (never mind that Langley is under capacity and Herndon is full) that they started a well-funded group to try and replace the Democrats on the School Board with a bunch of right-wing Republicans more to their liking.

When they realized that people elsewhere wouldn’t care much about something that might only affect the Langley boundaries in 2032, they changed their name from “One Great Falls” to “Voices of Fairfax,” started pretending to care about the overcrowding at McLean, and struck an alliance with people like Elizabeth Schultz.

Then they found a weak candidate in Dranesville who only moved to the DC area after Trump’s election (Anastasia Karloutsos) and continued to spread misinformation about the School Board’s plans, in particular by suggesting that even considering SES factors when adjusting boundaries is tantamount to a county-wide redistricting to bus kids at every level back and forth across the county. The lies were so egregious that Superintendent Scott Brabrand, who has every incentive to stay out of their politics, felt compelled to issue a statement and video to debunk their claims.

Fortunately, there is a good choice in Dranesville: Elaine Tholen. She’s a long-time county resident and educator, with a strong commitment to forward-looking thinking. She lives in Great Falls, so it’s not like she’s going to throw Langley overboard, but her election should help put the non-productive rumor-mongering of groups like VOF to a halt.

Every time I see her I can't help but think she'd rather be planning solar panels, cataloging trees and taking samples from local streams.

Every time I see Mobasheri I can't help but think he'd rather be shorting a bond. And every time I hear Karloutsos I think she's auditioning for a revival of Grease.

LOL!!!! I love this quote! As a matter of fact, I enjoy shoring bonds, I have done it for a living for decades now. I also like buying them too and stocks. I have been teaching investments and economics for 17 years now at Fairfield University, Seton Hall Univ, Kean, Pace, CUNY, and most recently at the Univ of Richmond. But more important than bonds, are what I have learned from the 2000+ students I have had and their K-12 experiences which I hope to bring to the FCSB. I have opened another thread to discuss policy, perspective, and ideas if you are interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In fact, one of the main goals is to ensure community input before changing boundaries. That is why the moratorium was placed on administrative boundary changes.

Not so sure that was going to be significant in the new policy. Didn't Schultz bring that up in the work session?

Administrative boundary changes even for new and unoccupied housing are totally gone in the draft 8130. 100+ houses at 7 and Towlston slated for Spring Hill not nearby under capacity Colvin Run. FCSB needs scoping, intro meeting, and 3 public meetings on the faciltiies plural options, plus some work sessions and regular meetings? All that to occur after houses occupied and mega trailers? Then there's Top Golf becoming residences and that might be n the Edison pyramid.

Not sure that's the right outcome; one would like to think the administrative reassignment of a new development out of an overcrowded school to an under-enrolled school could be done expeditiously.

Unfortunately, when the track record includes using the administrative route to move kids out of an under-enrolled school like Lee to West Springfield (and then getting another similar request from a different group of Lee parents), you can see why Brabrand wanted to change the process.

He has a point on admin boundary changes.

Doesn't explain why they pretended boundary policy hadn't been looked at in 30 years.

Doesn't explain why he can't say "One Fairfax" when talking to us but in work sessions says it over and over.

Doesn't explain why, if it was so important to keep McLean overcrowded while they revised policy, that they did a CIP amendment to consider McLean in September and stopped working on policy even though the plan in July was to vote on the new policy in September.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In fact, one of the main goals is to ensure community input before changing boundaries. That is why the moratorium was placed on administrative boundary changes.

Not so sure that was going to be significant in the new policy. Didn't Schultz bring that up in the work session?

Administrative boundary changes even for new and unoccupied housing are totally gone in the draft 8130. 100+ houses at 7 and Towlston slated for Spring Hill not nearby under capacity Colvin Run. FCSB needs scoping, intro meeting, and 3 public meetings on the faciltiies plural options, plus some work sessions and regular meetings? All that to occur after houses occupied and mega trailers? Then there's Top Golf becoming residences and that might be n the Edison pyramid.

Not sure that's the right outcome; one would like to think the administrative reassignment of a new development out of an overcrowded school to an under-enrolled school could be done expeditiously.

Unfortunately, when the track record includes using the administrative route to move kids out of an under-enrolled school like Lee to West Springfield (and then getting another similar request from a different group of Lee parents), you can see why Brabrand wanted to change the process.

He has a point on admin boundary changes.

Doesn't explain why they pretended boundary policy hadn't been looked at in 30 years.

Doesn't explain why he can't say "One Fairfax" when talking to us but in work sessions says it over and over.

Doesn't explain why, if it was so important to keep McLean overcrowded while they revised policy, that they did a CIP amendment to consider McLean in September and stopped working on policy even though the plan in July was to vote on the new policy in September.

You are a broken record.

There's a difference between amending an existing policy and taking a fresh look at the entire policy. Most people would understand that.

I'm sure you'd have no difficulty getting Brabrand to discuss One Fairfax; that doesn't mean he has to use the phrase in every message he sends.

Many McLean parents wanted the CIP amendment so FCPS could start working on scoping a boundary study. The students don't need to be held hostage either to a protracted discussion around the policy or to a bunch of right-wing jerks who want to keep kids in trailers to maximize the distress.

We know, by the way, that One Great Falls only pushes this narrative because some Langley parents are bent out of shape over the possibility that their kids might be moved out of Langley some day.

[Anonymous]

FCPS has now posted the amended CIP, which specifically incorporates the Langley/McLean boundary study as a priority recommended boundary adjustment, to be decided in the spring of 2020 and take effect in the 2020-21 school year.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/facilities-planning-future/capital-improvement-program

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/amended-FY2020-24-CIP.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In fact, one of the main goals is to ensure community input before changing boundaries. That is why the moratorium was placed on administrative boundary changes.

Not so sure that was going to be significant in the new policy. Didn't Schultz bring that up in the work session?

Administrative boundary changes even for new and unoccupied housing are totally gone in the draft 8130. 100+ houses at 7 and Towlston slated for Spring Hill not nearby under capacity Colvin Run. FCSB needs scoping, intro meeting, and 3 public meetings on the faciltiies plural options, plus some work sessions and regular meetings? All that to occur after houses occupied and mega trailers? Then there's Top Golf becoming residences and that might be n the Edison pyramid.

Not sure that's the right outcome; one would like to think the administrative reassignment of a new development out of an overcrowded school to an under-enrolled school could be done expeditiously.

Unfortunately, when the track record includes using the administrative route to move kids out of an under-enrolled school like Lee to West Springfield (and then getting another similar request from a different group of Lee parents), you can see why Brabrand wanted to change the process.

He has a point on admin boundary changes.

Doesn't explain why they pretended boundary policy hadn't been looked at in 30 years.

Doesn't explain why he can't say "One Fairfax" when talking to us but in work sessions says it over and over.

Doesn't explain why, if it was so important to keep McLean overcrowded while they revised policy, that they did a CIP amendment to consider McLean in September and stopped working on policy even though the plan in July was to vote on the new policy in September.

You are a broken record.

There's a difference between amending an existing policy and taking a fresh look at the entire policy. Most people would understand that.

I'm sure you'd have no difficulty getting Brabrand to discuss One Fairfax; that doesn't mean he has to use the phrase in every message he sends.

Many McLean parents wanted the CIP amendment so FCPS could start working on scoping a boundary study. The students don't need to be held hostage either to a protracted discussion around the policy or to a bunch of right-wing jerks who want to keep kids in trailers to maximize the distress.

We know, by the way, that One Great Falls only pushes this narrative because some Langley parents are bent out of shape over the possibility that their kids might be moved out of Langley some day.

So who on the board will come forth with the minutes and videos to show the public that in the last thirty years they never read the entire policy over to consider what to change?

Will If it was so important to keep McLean overcrowded until a new policy was passed why did they halt work on policy to, as Keys Gamarra said, "stop the hemorrhaging?"

They were so adamant (except for, I think, only Mr. Moon who regrettably has dropped out of the race) earlier in the year. Once the policy became a public issue that was clearly not going away, it suddenly became unimportant and they could work on it later, now it was conveniently a matter of urgency to get kids out of trailers.

Langley parents aren't elected by the public.

The school board, that refused relief for McLean while they worked on policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS has now posted the amended CIP, which specifically incorporates the Langley/McLean boundary study as a priority recommended boundary adjustment, to be decided in the spring of 2020 and take effect in the 2020-21 school year.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/facilities-planning-future/capital-improvement-program

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/amended-FY2020-24-CIP.pdf

McLean and Langley now have their definite "maybe"

"Note: Recommended boundary adjustment options and program changes are included in the CIP for future consideration only"--p. 46

Watch this comment on what it means to be on the CIP, and note the number of objections/corrections to this statement you (do not) hear:
https://youtu.be/v4pXN-z3mRo?t=7214

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS has now posted the amended CIP, which specifically incorporates the Langley/McLean boundary study as a priority recommended boundary adjustment, to be decided in the spring of 2020 and take effect in the 2020-21 school year.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/facilities-planning-future/capital-improvement-program

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/amended-FY2020-24-CIP.pdf

McLean and Langley now have their definite "maybe"

"Note: Recommended boundary adjustment options and program changes are included in the CIP for future consideration only"--p. 46

Watch this comment on what it means to be on the CIP, and note the number of objections/corrections to this statement you (do not) hear:
https://youtu.be/v4pXN-z3mRo?t=7214

At 2:17:37 that meeting video has corbett Sanders stating before we consider putting in trailers we should consider boundary changes. Isn't that just priceless considering her base school West Potomac doesn't need an addition, hired a consultant after the bond vote in Nov upping that capacity...

Howard County MD , a smaller but similar in scope to FCPS , has new in 2019 actual utilzation % that trigger boundary changes. Time line on this bond and when the consultant gets working on a new policy is shifty.