FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fareed Zakaria has a piece in the Washington post about gore the Dems should post attention to its base - the professional class, rather than move further to the left.

Will the school board listen, or are they going to charge full bore into the boundary changes. Hard to think of an issue that can turn off the professional class quicker than depriving their kids of an education.

what?

A couple typos in my prior post. The jist is that it is an opinion piece about how the Dems might want to consider catering to the professional class rather than dwell in solely identity politics.

I hope the school board reads it, would be good for them to broaden their perspective on this.

You’re not accurately characterizing the opinion piece, but local Democrats will indeed lose support in Fairfax if they impose boundary changes without a very compelling reason. But it’s Republicans who will continue to lose in Fairfax if they wage culture wars.

Think you a bit confused about which side is waging the culture war. But Republicans have little chance with so many low intellect residents in Fairfax County.

They both wage culture wars but the culture wars waged by Republicans running for office in Fairfax lose elections. The proof is in the results. Responding to this by calling some of the most highly educated voters in the country “low intellect” won’t change the outcome.

And so you know I only voted for one Democrat in the last SB elections. I told the Republican running in our district to focus more on academics and facilities and less on library books and bathroom access. He did, eventually, but by then it was too late given the advantages Ds have.

Will that change if there are big boundary changes that people don’t want? Possibly, but there’s no guarantee.

I gave similar feedback to an R SB candidate who came knocking doors last cycle, but in my case it seemed to fall on deaf ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it just comes down to people being willing to support students in the county up to a point, but when they start using Fairfax students as the resource to help under performing schools it’ll get ugly real fast.

Part of it is that at this point the boundary change process has been mishandled/miscommunicated sufficiently that the well has been successfully poisoned... almost any change, no matter how rational and logistically optimal, will be framed as "using Fairfax students as the resource to help underperforming schools" by those who have already made up their mind about things and/or use any and every opportunity to throw shade at Dems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it just comes down to people being willing to support students in the county up to a point, but when they start using Fairfax students as the resource to help under performing schools it’ll get ugly real fast.

Part of it is that at this point the boundary change process has been mishandled/miscommunicated sufficiently that the well has been successfully poisoned... almost any change, no matter how rational and logistically optimal, will be framed as "using Fairfax students as the resource to help underperforming schools" by those who have already made up their mind about things and/or use any and every opportunity to throw shade at Dems.

So, then, what is the mishandled/miscommunication? Seems to me, they were pretty clear. Especially Robyn Lady. It's on video.

They are just upset that they let it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Hmm, if you actually look at statistics Democrats fare much better with the professional class and Republicans better with less educated demographic.

And, there is the "rub." You assume that being "educated" depends on degrees. I happen to fall in the category you describe--I have a Master's degree plus. DH. as well. However, I do not assume that people without degrees are not "educated."
Do you really think the people on our School Board are smart? Some of them may be by your standards. But, common sense is lacking.

Many people without degrees are smarter than you and I. Quit labeling people. Lots of people without degrees are well read and deep thinkers.

Perhaps, you should get out more.

This was written in response to the poater that commented about "low intellect" Fairfax residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it just comes down to people being willing to support students in the county up to a point, but when they start using Fairfax students as the resource to help under performing schools it’ll get ugly real fast.

Part of it is that at this point the boundary change process has been mishandled/miscommunicated sufficiently that the well has been successfully poisoned... almost any change, no matter how rational and logistically optimal, will be framed as "using Fairfax students as the resource to help underperforming schools" by those who have already made up their mind about things and/or use any and every opportunity to throw shade at Dems.

So, then, what is the mishandled/miscommunication? Seems to me, they were pretty clear. Especially Robyn Lady. It's on video.

They are just upset that they let it out.

Exactly. I’ve listened to enough of the board meetings to know that when the school board says they want public engagement, what they mean is that they think they can win converts to their side via Thru’s propaganda.

For them, it’s not about listening to constituents, it’s about trying to “educate” us about their socialist agenda. Destined to fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From CNN:

“A 58% majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say that the Democratic Party needs major changes, or to be completely reformed, up from just 34% who said the same after the 2022 midterm elections.”

I’m one of them. Local Dems should be focused on aligning with the Fairfax professional base, rather than pickings fight with us by going after their kids with unnecessary boundary changes.

Why do they have to align with you? Democratic voters will reliably vote blue no matter who in Fairfax County in every election for every office. They will not be deterred and frankly, this is what you voted for.

I mean, I guess you’re right that they don’t have to try to win elections. But this would be their way back from exile - stop with the extremely progressive nonsense.

But we're talking local democrats. Local democrats are in power and aren't in any danger of losing it. On the national stage, yes democrats will continue to lose if they insist on open borders without cre for how that impacts schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From CNN:

“A 58% majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say that the Democratic Party needs major changes, or to be completely reformed, up from just 34% who said the same after the 2022 midterm elections.”

I’m one of them. Local Dems should be focused on aligning with the Fairfax professional base, rather than pickings fight with us by going after their kids with unnecessary boundary changes.

Why do they have to align with you? Democratic voters will reliably vote blue no matter who in Fairfax County in every election for every office. They will not be deterred and frankly, this is what you voted for.

I mean, I guess you’re right that they don’t have to try to win elections. But this would be their way back from exile - stop with the extremely progressive nonsense.

But we're talking local democrats. Local democrats are in power and aren't in any danger of losing it. On the national stage, yes democrats will continue to lose if they insist on open borders without cre for how that impacts schools.

Yep, fools in Fairfax County. Will keep electing clowns to the school board until there are no kids left in the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read through much of this thread. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what the future timelines might look like. A general expectation of what ‘grandfathered in’ rules might be for kids; if any.

I understand it’s all still just speculation, but is there a general consensus on what is expected for implementing changes?

No, they gave themselves maximum flexibility. There could be few boundary changes and generous grandfathering or many boundary changes and no/limited grandfathering. Your peace of mind is not important to them, and any “consensus” is wishful thinking.

Their timeline is to have draft proposals by May/June and approve boundary changes by early 2026. Implementation would begin in the fall of 2026.

The timeline listed is correct. Grandfathering, at minimum, will be rising 6th, 8th, and 12th graders (rising 5th graders for K-5 schools.)

That may be a prediction but the revised boundary policy continues to state that even this limited grandfathering is “at the discretion of the School Board.” There is no firm commitment to grandfather rising 6th (or 5th), 8th and 12 graders.

When you grandfather, you end up running multiple bus routes through the rezoned neighborhoods. That limits the number of boundaries you can change, due to constraints on the size of the bus fleet, and flies in the face of the argument that boundary changes are needed to save money. They refused to commit to grandfathering because they wanted to reserve the ability to change a lot of boundaries with no grandfathering. It was a very lawyerly but politically stupid decision.

I think it was Sniveling Sandy Anderson who was adamantly against grandfathering so they could have maximum flexibility for the changes. Go back and watch the July sb meeting where they shot down grandfathering amendments for more insight.

If they are doing the map from scratch then they can't grandfather or at least, must require families to provide transportation if they want their child to finish at the school where they started.
They are big on "equity" so they probably won't do that, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fareed Zakaria has a piece in the Washington post about gore the Dems should post attention to its base - the professional class, rather than move further to the left.

Will the school board listen, or are they going to charge full bore into the boundary changes. Hard to think of an issue that can turn off the professional class quicker than depriving their kids of an education.

That's a false characterization of what's going on.

Changing boundaries is not the same as turning children away or locking the doors.

You're not going to get anywhere being so ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fareed Zakaria has a piece in the Washington post about gore the Dems should post attention to its base - the professional class, rather than move further to the left.

Will the school board listen, or are they going to charge full bore into the boundary changes. Hard to think of an issue that can turn off the professional class quicker than depriving their kids of an education.

That's a false characterization of what's going on.

Changing boundaries is not the same as turning children away or locking the doors.

You're not going to get anywhere being so ridiculous.

School board is depriving these families of the pyramid that they selected when they bought their house. Clamor all you want about how we are one county and it is not guaranteed, but those families will see this as a big betrayal. The Dems will bleed a lot of support over this. Maybe they can afford to be dense about it on the local level, but nationwide and statewide, certainly not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read through much of this thread. I’m just trying to get a basic idea of what the future timelines might look like. A general expectation of what ‘grandfathered in’ rules might be for kids; if any.

I understand it’s all still just speculation, but is there a general consensus on what is expected for implementing changes?

No, they gave themselves maximum flexibility. There could be few boundary changes and generous grandfathering or many boundary changes and no/limited grandfathering. Your peace of mind is not important to them, and any “consensus” is wishful thinking.

Their timeline is to have draft proposals by May/June and approve boundary changes by early 2026. Implementation would begin in the fall of 2026.

The timeline listed is correct. Grandfathering, at minimum, will be rising 6th, 8th, and 12th graders (rising 5th graders for K-5 schools.)

That may be a prediction but the revised boundary policy continues to state that even this limited grandfathering is “at the discretion of the School Board.” There is no firm commitment to grandfather rising 6th (or 5th), 8th and 12 graders.

When you grandfather, you end up running multiple bus routes through the rezoned neighborhoods. That limits the number of boundaries you can change, due to constraints on the size of the bus fleet, and flies in the face of the argument that boundary changes are needed to save money. They refused to commit to grandfathering because they wanted to reserve the ability to change a lot of boundaries with no grandfathering. It was a very lawyerly but politically stupid decision.

I think it was Sniveling Sandy Anderson who was adamantly against grandfathering so they could have maximum flexibility for the changes. Go back and watch the July sb meeting where they shot down grandfathering amendments for more insight.

If they are doing the map from scratch then they can't grandfather or at least, must require families to provide transportation if they want their child to finish at the school where they started.
They are big on "equity" so they probably won't do that, either.

I am pro-grandfathering, but I think that is why they will shoot it down. It's interesting though, since pupil placements for AP, languages, etc also require the parent to provide transportation. That's inequitable too by the same logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fareed Zakaria has a piece in the Washington post about gore the Dems should post attention to its base - the professional class, rather than move further to the left.

Will the school board listen, or are they going to charge full bore into the boundary changes. Hard to think of an issue that can turn off the professional class quicker than depriving their kids of an education.

That's a false characterization of what's going on.

Changing boundaries is not the same as turning children away or locking the doors.

You're not going to get anywhere being so ridiculous.

School board is depriving these families of the pyramid that they selected when they bought their house. Clamor all you want about how we are one county and it is not guaranteed, but those families will see this as a big betrayal. The Dems will bleed a lot of support over this. Maybe they can afford to be dense about it on the local level, but nationwide and statewide, certainly not.

Then let them bleed the support

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fareed Zakaria has a piece in the Washington post about gore the Dems should post attention to its base - the professional class, rather than move further to the left.

Will the school board listen, or are they going to charge full bore into the boundary changes. Hard to think of an issue that can turn off the professional class quicker than depriving their kids of an education.

That's a false characterization of what's going on.

Changing boundaries is not the same as turning children away or locking the doors.

You're not going to get anywhere being so ridiculous.

School board is depriving these families of the pyramid that they selected when they bought their house. Clamor all you want about how we are one county and it is not guaranteed, but those families will see this as a big betrayal. The Dems will bleed a lot of support over this. Maybe they can afford to be dense about it on the local level, but nationwide and statewide, certainly not.

Then let them bleed the support

Yes, “let them eat cake.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fareed Zakaria has a piece in the Washington post about gore the Dems should post attention to its base - the professional class, rather than move further to the left.

Will the school board listen, or are they going to charge full bore into the boundary changes. Hard to think of an issue that can turn off the professional class quicker than depriving their kids of an education.

That's a false characterization of what's going on.

Changing boundaries is not the same as turning children away or locking the doors.

You're not going to get anywhere being so ridiculous.

School board is depriving these families of the pyramid that they selected when they bought their house. Clamor all you want about how we are one county and it is not guaranteed, but those families will see this as a big betrayal. The Dems will bleed a lot of support over this. Maybe they can afford to be dense about it on the local level, but nationwide and statewide, certainly not.

The bolded is true for those that are moved.

It is also true that those who stay may find their school substantially changed with friends and longtime classmates reboundaried elsewhere.

I think Dems can indeed be dense on the local level and get away with it. They may lose some support, but we have seen that they can do whatever and still get elected. So long as they can get paid to play with people's lives enacting untested and sometimes disastrous theories and policies, that's all they care about.

As usual, those most adversely impacted by their actions will be those without enough money and time (to teach/have their kids taught to read with phonics, to put them in private/homeschooling with physical books, more outside time and real discipline etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fareed Zakaria has a piece in the Washington post about gore the Dems should post attention to its base - the professional class, rather than move further to the left.

Will the school board listen, or are they going to charge full bore into the boundary changes. Hard to think of an issue that can turn off the professional class quicker than depriving their kids of an education.

That's a false characterization of what's going on.

Changing boundaries is not the same as turning children away or locking the doors.

You're not going to get anywhere being so ridiculous.

School board is depriving these families of the pyramid that they selected when they bought their house. Clamor all you want about how we are one county and it is not guaranteed, but those families will see this as a big betrayal. The Dems will bleed a lot of support over this. Maybe they can afford to be dense about it on the local level, but nationwide and statewide, certainly not.

The bolded is true for those that are moved.

It is also true that those who stay may find their school substantially changed with friends and longtime classmates reboundaried elsewhere.

I think Dems can indeed be dense on the local level and get away with it. They may lose some support, but we have seen that they can do whatever and still get elected. So long as they can get paid to play with people's lives enacting untested and sometimes disastrous theories and policies, that's all they care about.

As usual, those most adversely impacted by their actions will be those without enough money and time (to teach/have their kids taught to read with phonics, to put them in private/homeschooling with physical books, more outside time and real discipline etc).