FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they actually said One Fairfax is the goal or is this just assumptions?

Assumptions. Right up there with the “it’s all about EqUiTy” claim.

See slide 25. https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/20250221_SuperintendentBoundaryReviewAdvisoryCommitteePresentation.pdf

When they don't think you are looking, equity gets top billing. It doesn't appear in the actual 8130 policy or responses the SB has given about the leaked maps. But that is 100% the criteria they are using.

In other words “I have no evidence, links, statements, documents, or proof, but trust me.”

So...you didn't go to the linked document then??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have they actually said One Fairfax is the goal or is this just assumptions?

People will ignore this because of the source but these are all thing the Board and superintendent have said. They are getting more careful now in the current climate but this is what is driving everything.

Starting around 54:00

“I don’t believe we’ve had a One Fairfax lens for the boundary process.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gf7WUaZn-E

“I am suspending making any administrative boundary recommendations for the 18/19 school year until we can engage together in a dialogue regarding potential revisions to Policy and Regulation 8130 that better align boundary decision-making to our One Fairfax policy.” Scott Brabrand, FCPS Superintendent

https://fairfaxgop.org/fcps-superintendent-uses-taxpayer-resources-to-misinform-public-on-school-boundary-changes/

Need for socioeconomic resegregation as part of One Fairfax and discussing need for an equity lens for the boundary process

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFd5tdtDlp0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they actually said One Fairfax is the goal or is this just assumptions?

Assumptions. Right up there with the “it’s all about EqUiTy” claim.

See slide 25. https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/20250221_SuperintendentBoundaryReviewAdvisoryCommitteePresentation.pdf

When they don't think you are looking, equity gets top billing. It doesn't appear in the actual 8130 policy or responses the SB has given about the leaked maps. But that is 100% the criteria they are using.

In other words “I have no evidence, links, statements, documents, or proof, but trust me.”

So...you didn't go to the linked document then??

Your link to slide 25 says nothing even remotely close to what you claim. You may as well have linked to a manual on how to launch the space shuttle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they actually said One Fairfax is the goal or is this just assumptions?

Assumptions. Right up there with the “it’s all about EqUiTy” claim.

See slide 25. https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/20250221_SuperintendentBoundaryReviewAdvisoryCommitteePresentation.pdf

When they don't think you are looking, equity gets top billing. It doesn't appear in the actual 8130 policy or responses the SB has given about the leaked maps. But that is 100% the criteria they are using.

In other words “I have no evidence, links, statements, documents, or proof, but trust me.”

So...you didn't go to the linked document then??

Your link to slide 25 says nothing even remotely close to what you claim. You may as well have linked to a manual on how to launch the space shuttle.

OK Gatehouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS email sent this afternoon included:

Dr. Reid welcomed the group and reminded the committee that at the next meetings the first two scenarios will be reviewed, to include evaluation of 6th grade in middle school, and a scenario that assumes all students attend the school that they are zoned to attend based on the current boundary.

Can more details on these scenarios be found anywhere? In order to have "all students" attend the school they are zoned for, they'd have to eliminate AAP centers, magnet programs, language immersion, and other programs. I didn't think any of that was on the table. Am I wrong?

That seemed very ambiguous to me too - like keeping all boundaries the same but sending 6th to middle? Is that what they meant?

No, I don't think it would be keeping all boundaries the same but sending 6th to middle. It would probably just be one more addition to the chaos. But it doesn't even seem possible. Those middle school buildings can't hold three grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS email sent this afternoon included:

Dr. Reid welcomed the group and reminded the committee that at the next meetings the first two scenarios will be reviewed, to include evaluation of 6th grade in middle school, and a scenario that assumes all students attend the school that they are zoned to attend based on the current boundary.

Can more details on these scenarios be found anywhere? In order to have "all students" attend the school they are zoned for, they'd have to eliminate AAP centers, magnet programs, language immersion, and other programs. I didn't think any of that was on the table. Am I wrong?

That seemed very ambiguous to me too - like keeping all boundaries the same but sending 6th to middle? Is that what they meant?

No, I don't think it would be keeping all boundaries the same but sending 6th to middle. It would probably just be one more addition to the chaos. But it doesn't even seem possible. Those middle school buildings can't hold three grades.

If they're going to move 6th to the middle school, they're going to have to do a complete redraw of boundaries and change some elementary schools to middle schools while reallocation their k-5 kids to other schools. At this point I wouldn't be shocked if that's what they do. No one will be happy with the redraw but if most people are equally unhappy, they will consider it a win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS email sent this afternoon included:

Dr. Reid welcomed the group and reminded the committee that at the next meetings the first two scenarios will be reviewed, to include evaluation of 6th grade in middle school, and a scenario that assumes all students attend the school that they are zoned to attend based on the current boundary.

Can more details on these scenarios be found anywhere? In order to have "all students" attend the school they are zoned for, they'd have to eliminate AAP centers, magnet programs, language immersion, and other programs. I didn't think any of that was on the table. Am I wrong?

Hold on. So we have three scenarios: the first two would include 6th grades in middle school, and the third scenario is a status quo. Is this right? If so, I like the third best.

[Anonymous]

I”m looking at the “supporting quotes” from the documents released and boy did they cherry pick peoples comments. Most notable, they didn’t take into consideration the number of people saying the same things (eg don’t redistrict) and just listed quotes from people.

If one person said, “All schools need to be equitable and have the same programs” that was listed in the community feedback and given eh same weight in the document as 200 people saying “I want my kid to stay:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS email sent this afternoon included:

Dr. Reid welcomed the group and reminded the committee that at the next meetings the first two scenarios will be reviewed, to include evaluation of 6th grade in middle school, and a scenario that assumes all students attend the school that they are zoned to attend based on the current boundary.

Can more details on these scenarios be found anywhere? In order to have "all students" attend the school they are zoned for, they'd have to eliminate AAP centers, magnet programs, language immersion, and other programs. I didn't think any of that was on the table. Am I wrong?

Hold on. So we have three scenarios: the first two would include 6th grades in middle school, and the third scenario is a status quo. Is this right? If so, I like the third best.

Are the scenarios real possibilities or just for fun? Anyway, I read it as: one scenario is that while we redo boundaries we also move 6th to middle school, and another scenario is what would happen if we changed no boundaries but just made everyone go to their zoned school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I”m looking at the “supporting quotes” from the documents released and boy did they cherry pick peoples comments. Most notable, they didn’t take into consideration the number of people saying the same things (eg don’t redistrict) and just listed quotes from people.

If one person said, “All schools need to be equitable and have the same programs” that was listed in the community feedback and given eh same weight in the document as 200 people saying “I want my kid to stay:

Yes, they also reorganzied the feedback to fit the four priorities they are now putting forward (capacity, equitable programming, proximity, transportation, etc.) and got rid of the feedback that didn't match those priorities (don't change boundaries).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they actually said One Fairfax is the goal or is this just assumptions?

Assumptions. Right up there with the “it’s all about EqUiTy” claim.

They said it on video, multiple times, including the October 8th planning meeting.

The FCPS webpage linked earlier explaining the history of this rezoning process also explicitly states rezoning is to align with One Fairfax and Equity

If they said it “multiple times” you should have no problem telling everyone the time marks so we can all see it for ourselves. Go ahead.

The time marks are posted earlier.

Go look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I”m looking at the “supporting quotes” from the documents released and boy did they cherry pick peoples comments. Most notable, they didn’t take into consideration the number of people saying the same things (eg don’t redistrict) and just listed quotes from people.

If one person said, “All schools need to be equitable and have the same programs” that was listed in the community feedback and given eh same weight in the document as 200 people saying “I want my kid to stay:

Yes, they also reorganzied the feedback to fit the four priorities they are now putting forward (capacity, equitable programming, proximity, transportation, etc.) and got rid of the feedback that didn't match those priorities (don't change boundaries).

The problem was in the reorganization. The region comments were a fairly good summary of parents concerns, but when they morphed it into the board priorities, they completely lost all sense of what the majority of the community wants. It is a pretty appalling rewrite of public opinion going from regional summaries to board priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think it would be keeping all boundaries the same but sending 6th to middle. It would probably just be one more addition to the chaos. But it doesn't even seem possible. Those middle school buildings can't hold three grades.

I think that's the point. They will present one option of "not changing boundaries" but trying to shoehorn 6th into middle just to be able to say, "See, not changing the boundaries isn't a viable option."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your link to slide 25 says nothing even remotely close to what you claim. You may as well have linked to a manual on how to launch the space shuttle.

I think they were referring to slide 27 where it says,
> Aligned with Board Policy 8130 criteria (e.g., capacity, equity, proximity).

[Anonymous]

I still want to know which programs are currently distributed inequitably. What are they talking about???? They claim parents mentioned their concerns about inequitable programming. WHAT IS IT?
Doesn’t everyone get to lottery into magnet/immersion?
Doesn’t everyone get a choice between IB and AP and can transfer if their zoned school doesn’t offer the one they want?

Are they saying SPED kids get more resources and that isn’t fair? Or AAP kids get a choice and that isn’t fair?

Please, please tell me what this is!