Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IB. So, you have a kid who is inclined to math and science. But, to take "HL" she must write the essays required.

I am all for writing and produced kids who write well, but know some who have different talents.

This just does not seem like a good model for the schools in Fairfax County. Especially in the schools with very high immigrant population who do not speak English as a first language.

The School Board is a bunch of ignorant cowards. They don’t have the courage to revisit wasteful IB programs. All it takes is a dozen parents or kids telling them IB is wonderful and they are content to continue ignoring the fact that IB meets the needs of far fewer kids than AP.

+1. Vote these fools out in 2027. All of them are trying to use the position to move up and only care about boundaries and programs offered if it benefits their personal neighborhoods.

I beg those of you in Braddock to vote for Saundra Davis. I know nothing about her, but we desperately need a different voice on the Board--whether we agree with her or not.

Voting for someone who you know nothing about is a dangerous move. This is not my district, but a quick glance at her policies are against what I stand for as a parent and educator. I agree that we need change on the board, but not at this cost.

If Fairfax residents don't start voting differently they can expect more boundary changes, more bad capital expenditure decisions (schools that don't need to be built), more bad curriculum choices (keeping IB at schools where it is clearly not working), no checks on residency, no follow through on transfers (are they legit), etc. The folks running FCPS - elected or appointed - are not competent. At least put one voice on the board (like Pat Herrity is on the Board of Supervisors) who can at least point out issues. Seems like a reasonable course of action.

[Anonymous]

The top two targets for change next election should be Sandy Anderson and Robyn Lady. Both represent areas that were targeted for boundary changes and will likely be targeted again. Both members have been antagonistic to broad swaths of voters in their districts.

If I were running a political operation to break up the FCPS one-party rule, they would be the target this upcoming election cycle, and they both deserve the spotlight for failing in their basic duty to advocate for the interests of all their constituents, not just some of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The top two targets for change next election should be Sandy Anderson and Robyn Lady. Both represent areas that were targeted for boundary changes and will likely be targeted again. Both members have been antagonistic to broad swaths of voters in their districts.

If I were running a political operation to break up the FCPS one-party rule, they would be the target this upcoming election cycle, and they both deserve the spotlight for failing in their basic duty to advocate for the interests of all their constituents, not just some of them.

Lady needs to go--but she tried to throw the overcrowding in the Oak Hill area under the bus. After talking about how thrilled she was for the new school because of intense overcrowding at Chantilly, she changed her tune--right after she met with Great Falls community. All of a sudden, she is concerned about ruining those "beautiful small spaces at KAA" and decided it should be a magnet.

Meanwhile, she stood by and let Coates go another year with severe overcrowding. Coates is her school and she should have insisted they fix it last year.

These two examples alone show that she needs to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top two targets for change next election should be Sandy Anderson and Robyn Lady. Both represent areas that were targeted for boundary changes and will likely be targeted again. Both members have been antagonistic to broad swaths of voters in their districts.

If I were running a political operation to break up the FCPS one-party rule, they would be the target this upcoming election cycle, and they both deserve the spotlight for failing in their basic duty to advocate for the interests of all their constituents, not just some of them.

Lady needs to go--but she tried to throw the overcrowding in the Oak Hill area under the bus. After talking about how thrilled she was for the new school because of intense overcrowding at Chantilly, she changed her tune--right after she met with Great Falls community. All of a sudden, she is concerned about ruining those "beautiful small spaces at KAA" and decided it should be a magnet.

Meanwhile, she stood by and let Coates go another year with severe overcrowding. Coates is her school and she should have insisted they fix it last year.

These two examples alone show that she needs to go.

To stand a good chance next election, she’ll need to explicitly denounce future comprehensive reviews. She’s really alienated a lot of the GF community and needs to work on mending pretty deep divisions that she opened up in that community.

And to boot, she has taken no concrete steps to address facility issues at McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The list of Jan 2027 things to look into would have massive ripple effects…this boundary process will effectively be always on

So when does this never-ending boundary review process reach its conclusion (whatever it may be). It's impossible to follow. Is there one more meeting this week where Reid presents her recommendation and then another one where SB votes and it's finalized? So like two more weeks of this?

[Anonymous]

School board votes this Thursday and then we are “done”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of Jan 2027 things to look into would have massive ripple effects…this boundary process will effectively be always on

So when does this never-ending boundary review process reach its conclusion (whatever it may be). It's impossible to follow. Is there one more meeting this week where Reid presents her recommendation and then another one where SB votes and it's finalized? So like two more weeks of this?

And then another year of this for those flagged for 2027.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:School board votes this Thursday and then we are “done”

Fortunately, some of us are done. Others get to start again in January. This has been a nightmare. I'm looking forward to this thread dying away...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School board votes this Thursday and then we are “done”

Fortunately, some of us are done. Others get to start again in January. This has been a nightmare. I'm looking forward to this thread dying away...

What are the betting odds that this round really concludes on Thursday as planned? Versus SB punting decision to get 2 additional data points, Reid deciding she wants more time to review stuff and/or changing "vote" to be some administrative thing but not decision binding etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School board votes this Thursday and then we are “done”

Fortunately, some of us are done. Others get to start again in January. This has been a nightmare. I'm looking forward to this thread dying away...

What are the betting odds that this round really concludes on Thursday as planned? Versus SB punting decision to get 2 additional data points, Reid deciding she wants more time to review stuff and/or changing "vote" to be some administrative thing but not decision binding etc.

DP. I think they vote this Thursday, but it really does seem like the boundary review will be unrelenting going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School board votes this Thursday and then we are “done”

Fortunately, some of us are done. Others get to start again in January. This has been a nightmare. I'm looking forward to this thread dying away...

What are the betting odds that this round really concludes on Thursday as planned? Versus SB punting decision to get 2 additional data points, Reid deciding she wants more time to review stuff and/or changing "vote" to be some administrative thing but not decision binding etc.

Low. The Sandy Anderson block has the votes to push this through. Sandy may want Reid to take another look at West Springfield but she likely won’t hold up the first tranche of changes (after this they will focus on the Western HS boundaries and then the list of items to be addressed in January 2027). Fun times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School board votes this Thursday and then we are “done”

Fortunately, some of us are done. Others get to start again in January. This has been a nightmare. I'm looking forward to this thread dying away...

What are the betting odds that this round really concludes on Thursday as planned? Versus SB punting decision to get 2 additional data points, Reid deciding she wants more time to review stuff and/or changing "vote" to be some administrative thing but not decision binding etc.

The current recommendation is already open ended. They will pass the current recommendations to claim they did something and then will continue tinkering with the priority sites. Whether they pass it or not the recommendation itself gives Reid more time to review and change stuff over the next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School board votes this Thursday and then we are “done”

Fortunately, some of us are done. Others get to start again in January. This has been a nightmare. I'm looking forward to this thread dying away...

What are the betting odds that this round really concludes on Thursday as planned? Versus SB punting decision to get 2 additional data points, Reid deciding she wants more time to review stuff and/or changing "vote" to be some administrative thing but not decision binding etc.

The current recommendation is already open ended. They will pass the current recommendations to claim they did something and then will continue tinkering with the priority sites. Whether they pass it or not the recommendation itself gives Reid more time to review and change stuff over the next year.

But will the key questions being debated last few months - eg whether Crossfield or Lees Corner move to Western - be decided on Thursday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School board votes this Thursday and then we are “done”

Fortunately, some of us are done. Others get to start again in January. This has been a nightmare. I'm looking forward to this thread dying away...

What are the betting odds that this round really concludes on Thursday as planned? Versus SB punting decision to get 2 additional data points, Reid deciding she wants more time to review stuff and/or changing "vote" to be some administrative thing but not decision binding etc.

The current recommendation is already open ended. They will pass the current recommendations to claim they did something and then will continue tinkering with the priority sites. Whether they pass it or not the recommendation itself gives Reid more time to review and change stuff over the next year.

But will the key questions being debated last few months - eg whether Crossfield or Lees Corner move to Western - be decided on Thursday?

Of course not. Anything related to Western is outside the scope of this vote.

[Anonymous]

I am in the Springfield district and I won't vote for Sandy Anderson, but I also will not vote for a crazy Trumper type. I really hope a moderate runs. I'm hopeful because people here want someone reasonable to represent us, and I think someone will step up.