When are Herndon Middle and Herndon High going to get a break?!??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nice try, but I don’t think the county is going to vote in a bunch of Republicans just so Langley families can continue to live in their bubble of affluence and arrogance.

NP here


-- I think educating refugee children is not only moral, it makes sense.

--what kind of bubble were Herndon families in 20 years ago? The demographics didn't change so much at Herndon because Herndon families were happy with the trends there.

---I remain skeptical that party affiliation means very much in terms of school board effectiveness.

[Anonymous]

The right-platform of bashing the School Board for coming up with a more streamlined framework for necessary boundary changes, renaming a school named after a Confederate, and protecting the rights of LBGTQ kids doesn’t seem like a winning platform. And when you have crazy-ass Trump supporters showing up at School Board work sessions and screaming that the School Board is responsible for overcrowding “because you let all the illegals in,” it just turns people in Fairfax off even more.

Seriously, you might want to find a new state and/or county to peddle this.

Can you read.
Didn't say they should not have renamed it. Had great problems with the process. If they are going to the "community" then they should listen to the community. They only go to the community when they get the results they want. They kept changing the rules. If it is "right wing" to object to changing the rules midstream, then color me "right wing."
An
And, do you think there is only you and one other poster on here? This is about a lot more than Langley. This is about the process of how this SB works.

The SB was supposed to be non-partisan. We should not allow party endorsements.

The SB has become a stepping stone to full blown party politics.

Just look at the last few years: Kaye Kory; Kathy Smith; Dan Storck and others? All have gone on to positions and have been strong party activists, as well. And, look at this year, McElveen lost, but tried. Palchik will likely move to BOS.

The SB is more concerned about issues important to their parties--rather than education of our kids.

[Anonymous]

Streamlined framework on 8130 is only streamlined in that it reduced factors and goals. Administrative boundary changes are efficient and gutted plus add the very strange administrative change when/if numerous students want to or have pupil placed for a program. I suspect that applies to certain schools and historical high outflow - Lee to WS, Mount Vernon to West Potomac.

This board has had at least 2 years to do something about over/under capacity when there is available bricks and mortar.

That is certainly NOT right wing. One Fairfax application:
- indoor toilet access
- equal funding with extras based on staffing ratios-ELs, disadvantaged, sped. Bye IB, magnets, AAP busing - non base school assignment, immersion funding and squeeze out the base school.

All those One Fairfax applications assist Herndon since it is a "clean" pyramid without earmarks. Let SJW begin by adjusting base school boundaries for phasing out magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The right-platform of bashing the School Board for coming up with a more streamlined framework for necessary boundary changes, renaming a school named after a Confederate, and protecting the rights of LBGTQ kids doesn’t seem like a winning platform. And when you have crazy-ass Trump supporters showing up at School Board work sessions and screaming that the School Board is responsible for overcrowding “because you let all the illegals in,” it just turns people in Fairfax off even more.

Seriously, you might want to find a new state and/or county to peddle this.

Can you read.
Didn't say they should not have renamed it. Had great problems with the process. If they are going to the "community" then they should listen to the community. They only go to the community when they get the results they want. They kept changing the rules. If it is "right wing" to object to changing the rules midstream, then color me "right wing."
An
And, do you think there is only you and one other poster on here? This is about a lot more than Langley. This is about the process of how this SB works.

The SB was supposed to be non-partisan. We should not allow party endorsements.

The SB has become a stepping stone to full blown party politics.

Just look at the last few years: Kaye Kory; Kathy Smith; Dan Storck and others? All have gone on to positions and have been strong party activists, as well. And, look at this year, McElveen lost, but tried. Palchik will likely move to BOS.

The SB is more concerned about issues important to their parties--rather than education of our kids.

They are looking to revise their regulation on renaming schools, along with revising their regulation on boundary changes.

In each case, it appears their intent is to streamline the regulation and make the process more transparent and efficient.

But, whenever they take steps like this, Schultz and the right-wingers will complain. If they eliminate a process for expedited boundary changes that currently provides for no public hearings, she’ll complain they are being inefficient. If they kept it in, she’d complain there wasn’t enough opportunity for public input. It’s all just for show.

[Anonymous]

They are looking to revise their regulation on renaming schools, along with revising their regulation on boundary changes.

In each case, it appears their intent is to streamline the regulation and make the process more transparent and efficient.

But, whenever they take steps like this, Schultz and the right-wingers will complain. If they eliminate a process for expedited boundary changes that currently provides for no public hearings, she’ll complain they are being inefficient. If they kept it in, she’d complain there wasn’t enough opportunity for public input. It’s all just for show.

Efficient? When income outweighs logistics?
Transparent? When they act without input? Has it occurred to you that there is a good reason for community input?

p.s. Please give an example when Schultz has said there should be no community involvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They are looking to revise their regulation on renaming schools, along with revising their regulation on boundary changes.

In each case, it appears their intent is to streamline the regulation and make the process more transparent and efficient.

But, whenever they take steps like this, Schultz and the right-wingers will complain. If they eliminate a process for expedited boundary changes that currently provides for no public hearings, she’ll complain they are being inefficient. If they kept it in, she’d complain there wasn’t enough opportunity for public input. It’s all just for show.

Efficient? When income outweighs logistics?
Transparent? When they act without input? Has it occurred to you that there is a good reason for community input?

p.s. Please give an example when Schultz has said there should be no community involvement.

She threw Brabrand under the bus at the work session for not having to undertaken more expedited boundary adjustments, which require no public hearings.

[Anonymous]

She threw Brabrand under the bus at the work session for not having to undertaken more expedited boundary adjustments, which require no public hearings.

Requiring none does not mean that he could not have one. And, she was right.

Waiting for the "perfect" rather than the "good" does not make sense. Of course, to him, the "perfect" would be "One Fairfax."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She threw Brabrand under the bus at the work session for not having to undertaken more expedited boundary adjustments, which require no public hearings.

Requiring none does not mean that he could not have one. And, she was right.

Waiting for the "perfect" rather than the "good" does not make sense. Of course, to him, the "perfect" would be "One Fairfax."

I have no sense that Brabrand thinks One Fairfax is perfect, only that he wants the Board to sign off on what One Fairfax means for boundaries before spending time on boundary studies. To be sure, most of the discussions around boundary policies have been an inefficient time suck, but Schultz never came up with any good ideas as to how to cut to the chase.

[Anonymous]

This is the strangest thread.

One minute Herndon folks are screaming about apartment dwellers affecting their schools and property and the next minute they are saying: It is right and moral to educate illegals. Apparently it is another "not my backyard" argument.

The other big argument is lets bus our problems to Langley.

You can't hate the process while failing to be part of change . In my humble opinion we should interview all school board candidates and have them sign a pledge of their platform with the caveat that they resign if they fail to keep their promises.

We need to stop voting for SB members that have an agenda that is bad for us. Forget party, vote promised platform and get rid of people that don't represent what the taxpayers want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the strangest thread.

One minute Herndon folks are screaming about apartment dwellers affecting their schools and property and the next minute they are saying: It is right and moral to educate illegals. Apparently it is another "not my backyard" argument.

The other big argument is lets bus our problems to Langley.

You can't hate the process while failing to be part of change . In my humble opinion we should interview all school board candidates and have them sign a pledge of their platform with the caveat that they resign if they fail to keep their promises.

We need to stop voting for SB members that have an agenda that is bad for us. Forget party, vote promised platform and get rid of people that don't represent what the taxpayers want.

I do believe the school board is legally obligated to educate children regardless of the illegality of their presence. They do not make immigration policy/law, they just have to deal with the student population that results.


It Is moral to be helpful.

It is practical to have them in school because the consequences to the larger society are unlikely to be nice if we do not.

Whether all of the above means that everyone else's lives should be disrupted to achieve the appearance that all the children are reaching the same academic levels is another question entirely.

How many resources we would be willing to employ in a valiant attempt to have illegal immigrant children *actually* achieve comparable academic achievement is still another. If we bring student teacher ratio down 5:1, and extended the school day, and employed extra tutors, and set up free academic summer camps, what would that cost and what would the other children have to sacrifice?

I for one do not believe that taking Herndon FARMs kids to Langley will solve anything.

[Anonymous]

You are correct the SB does have an obligation to educate all children. That doesn't give the federal and state government the right to plop illegals into schools with no notice or preparation. It is not fair to anyone regardless of where they live.

IMHO it is not wrong to have learning centers for illegals so they can get up to speed on the English language and culture so they can better assimilate into our schools. Dragging down the academics of the general population is not valuable to anyone.

How much are each of us willing to pay in increased taxes and lowered property values to care for illegal aliens?

Again, more questions than answers, but slinging mud at each other on this board is not constructive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are correct the SB does have an obligation to educate all children. That doesn't give the federal and state government the right to plop illegals into schools with no notice or preparation. It is not fair to anyone regardless of where they live.

IMHO it is not wrong to have learning centers for illegals so they can get up to speed on the English language and culture so they can better assimilate into our schools. Dragging down the academics of the general population is not valuable to anyone.

How much are each of us willing to pay in increased taxes and lowered property values to care for illegal aliens?

Again, more questions than answers, but slinging mud at each other on this board is not constructive.

No one wants to get honest, school board included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are correct the SB does have an obligation to educate all children. That doesn't give the federal and state government the right to plop illegals into schools with no notice or preparation. It is not fair to anyone regardless of where they live.

IMHO it is not wrong to have learning centers for illegals so they can get up to speed on the English language and culture so they can better assimilate into our schools. Dragging down the academics of the general population is not valuable to anyone.

How much are each of us willing to pay in increased taxes and lowered property values to care for illegal aliens?

Again, more questions than answers, but slinging mud at each other on this board is not constructive.

I am almost certain separate but equal is unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

It couldn't be unconstitutional. We have GT centers and special needs centers, magnet schools. There are schools like Marshall who teach everything from culinary arts to automotive.

Putting a 12 year old in kindergarten isn't good. Hell these kids could be peer mentors for foreign languages. It would be good for their self esteem and help American kids speak a second language.

I made sure my kids took Spanish from middle school and high school and some in college. Still they are not fluent because they didn't use it outside of our home.

Just a thought...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are correct the SB does have an obligation to educate all children. That doesn't give the federal and state government the right to plop illegals into schools with no notice or preparation. It is not fair to anyone regardless of where they live.

IMHO it is not wrong to have learning centers for illegals so they can get up to speed on the English language and culture so they can better assimilate into our schools. Dragging down the academics of the general population is not valuable to anyone.

How much are each of us willing to pay in increased taxes and lowered property values to care for illegal aliens?

Again, more questions than answers, but slinging mud at each other on this board is not constructive.

I am almost certain separate but equal is unconstitutional.

Seems to me a lot of those kids you want to set up in separate educational environments will need to be educated in institutions outside of their neighborhoods, sort of like a magnet school for non-english speakers. So is busing those kids outside of their neighborhoods for x number of years until they become fluent a good idea then, I mean you aren't against busing them out of certain schools as long as they don't get bused into segregated non-english speaker schools. I.E. not your school.