FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we assume that the teacher-school assignments will be reviewed as well?

Based on the changes to enrollment associated with moving students, there should be a comprehensive teacher-school assignment review conducted every five years.

No school should have a greater proportion of highly qualified/performing teachers (however that might be assessed) than any another school.

You’re obviously trolling. Teachers’ jobs aren’t tethered to where they work and they are not offered bus service. I could never afford a house in either of the pyramids I worked in. As a renter, my commute changed often. The country had the right to destaff me. They did not have the right to dictate a commute that they were not going to facilitate.

Why should students and their families bear all the weight of fixing the challenges FCPS faces? If capacity changes happen, teachers will have to move anyway. This seems like a more equitable approach. You can't advocate for moving students and not teachers. Moving students already means there's no community entitlement to a given school.

Teachers could decide for themselves of the commute is worth it, but if moves to teachers are done similar to students than we're not talking about opposite ends of the county.

As a teacher in another district, you don’t want to pick this battle. Teachers will move, Fairfax is already looked at as one of the low payers in the area. FCPS doesn’t offer the step increases every year and neighboring districts do it more often. The vacancy list is long enough already.
Most people teach for public service not the money so free market strategies for employment/wages aren’t very direct. You want teachers to stay and love what they do/their population. You don’t want to drive them into other, more stable districts.

That said, I am sure you have your mind made up and wouldn’t heed any advice anyway.

Well, good news for teachers, if the doomsayers are to be believed property values will tank after boundary changes meaning teachers will actually be able to afford to live in Fairfax County close to their schools.

But tax rolls would dry up too, so, when that happens, bye bye future raises.

That’s the one dimensional type of thinking that got us here.

Taxes will not "dry up". The mil rate for property taxes is determined after the real estate is assessed. If it assesses lower, the mil rate is increased to ensure similar (or higher) tax revenue for the county. Happens every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we assume that the teacher-school assignments will be reviewed as well?

Based on the changes to enrollment associated with moving students, there should be a comprehensive teacher-school assignment review conducted every five years.

No school should have a greater proportion of highly qualified/performing teachers (however that might be assessed) than any another school.

You’re obviously trolling. Teachers’ jobs aren’t tethered to where they work and they are not offered bus service. I could never afford a house in either of the pyramids I worked in. As a renter, my commute changed often. The country had the right to destaff me. They did not have the right to dictate a commute that they were not going to facilitate.

Why should students and their families bear all the weight of fixing the challenges FCPS faces? If capacity changes happen, teachers will have to move anyway. This seems like a more equitable approach. You can't advocate for moving students and not teachers. Moving students already means there's no community entitlement to a given school.

Teachers could decide for themselves of the commute is worth it, but if moves to teachers are done similar to students than we're not talking about opposite ends of the county.

As a teacher in another district, you don’t want to pick this battle. Teachers will move, Fairfax is already looked at as one of the low payers in the area. FCPS doesn’t offer the step increases every year and neighboring districts do it more often. The vacancy list is long enough already.
Most people teach for public service not the money so free market strategies for employment/wages aren’t very direct. You want teachers to stay and love what they do/their population. You don’t want to drive them into other, more stable districts.

That said, I am sure you have your mind made up and wouldn’t heed any advice anyway.

Well, good news for teachers, if the doomsayers are to be believed property values will tank after boundary changes meaning teachers will actually be able to afford to live in Fairfax County close to their schools.

But tax rolls would dry up too, so, when that happens, bye bye future raises.

That’s the one dimensional type of thinking that got us here.

Taxes will not "dry up". The mil rate for property taxes is determined after the real estate is assessed. If it assesses lower, the mil rate is increased to ensure similar (or higher) tax revenue for the county. Happens every year.

Why wouldn’t they just set a much higher mil rate? Fairfax county residents, now about to get the lowest common denominator schools, will idly sit by as the board of supervisors increase property taxes?

At that point, it truly would be a death spiral similar to what happened in NJ a decade ago.

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of people with gray hair in the audience waving signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of people with gray hair in the audience waving signs.

Yes, and the 7th grader testifying now has a bald dad. Your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of people with gray hair in the audience waving signs.

And FCPS parents too, though some of us have gray hair too. We come out in force in opposition to this reckless destructive policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of people with gray hair in the audience waving signs.

And FCPS parents too, though some of us have gray hair too. We come out in force in opposition to this reckless destructive policy.

Thank you! These kids are doing a great job too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of people with gray hair in the audience waving signs.

And FCPS parents too, though some of us have gray hair too. We come out in force in opposition to this reckless destructive policy.

Thank you! These kids are doing a great job too!

So proud of the kids who have stood up to speak truth to power. It’s not easy to stand up to the school boards, especially when you are a student.

[Anonymous]

Interesting that a Hunt Valley teacher testified in favor of the Policy 8130 revisions because she said it would call for boundary changes through an "equity lens."

Guess she wants to be in the Lewis pyramid!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that a Hunt Valley teacher testified in favor of the Policy 8130 revisions because she said it would call for boundary changes through an "equity lens."

Guess she wants to be in the Lewis pyramid!

It's a great opportunity to virtue signal and look good for her boss and the SB, especially if she doesn't have children in FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that a Hunt Valley teacher testified in favor of the Policy 8130 revisions because she said it would call for boundary changes through an "equity lens."

Guess she wants to be in the Lewis pyramid!

Is she in union leadership? Pretty shocked that she merged discussing collective bargaining and 8130 in her speech. I’d be shocked if the union would have allowed that.

Also, I thought the SB said equity wasn’t a reason, though she, as a Fairfax employee, just tied the boundary review to equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that a Hunt Valley teacher testified in favor of the Policy 8130 revisions because she said it would call for boundary changes through an "equity lens."

Guess she wants to be in the Lewis pyramid!

It's a great opportunity to virtue signal and look good for her boss and the SB, especially if she doesn't have children in FCPS.

And great fodder for a lawsuit against an equity redistricting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of people with gray hair in the audience waving signs.

And FCPS parents too, though some of us have gray hair too. We come out in force in opposition to this reckless destructive policy.

Most of the gfca are not FCPS parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of people with gray hair in the audience waving signs.

And FCPS parents too, though some of us have gray hair too. We come out in force in opposition to this reckless destructive policy.

Are all the speakers against the policy from Great Falls? The ones I heard were but I didn’t catch everyone.

[Anonymous]

Omg, some of the audience just booed a student speaker who was supportive of the policy change. How awful!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omg, some of the audience just booed a student speaker who was supportive of the policy change. How awful!

TBF, it was a video; reaction might (or at least should) have been different if she was there in person.

Anyway that's a warm up now that the SB is actually taking up the policy change.