FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

It's not an "open secret" because it's not true. The people committing residency fraud are people whose families have the time and money to transport them to and from school.

My kids are at one of the Rt. 1 schools (MVHS and West Potomac pyramids.) I've heard rumors for years that there are students at every school along the Rt. 1 corridor who actually live in PG county. The closest elementary school along Rt. 1 is only about 4 miles across the border from MD, so it's not that far. Our Kiss N Ride line always has several cars with MD plates. Maybe they are nannies but maybe the rumors are true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

So moving about 40-50 kids from one pocket (10 or so per grade) to then turn around and add in the RVES/Lewis kids isn’t solving this at all.

So you're making the case for wider boundary changes.

No she is makimg a case for the Lewis/Rolling Valley kids to stay at Lewis where they have always been zoned, and the WSHS families to stay at WSHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

So moving about 40-50 kids from one pocket (10 or so per grade) to then turn around and add in the RVES/Lewis kids isn’t solving this at all.

So you're making the case for wider boundary changes.

No- I’m calling out the hypocrisy. If WSHS is overcrowded and Lewis is lower enrollment, why would you move kids from WSHS (not to Lewis) just to move Lewis kids into WSHS? How does that help Lewis? How does that help WSHS?

DP. None of the Thru Consulting recommendations to date moved Lewis kids to West Springfield. They just moved West Springfield kids to South County and Lake Braddock. So if they do something different next time and propose to move some Lewis kids to West Springfield it’s possible they’d propose to move even more West Springfield kids to Lewis. Who really knows?

Our SB member continues to talk about moving RVES kids to WSHS.

Right. But that’s different from what’s been previously proposed, and it’s not going to happen without also moving some other kids out of WSHS. And those kids may not be the same kids Thru proposed to move out of WSHS. It’s all still up in the air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

It's not an "open secret" because it's not true. The people committing residency fraud are people whose families have the time and money to transport them to and from school.

If you were right then Sandy Anderson and her minions would’ve hired a whole battalion of residency investigators.

It is true. It is a very open secret. It's not the poor families committing residency fraud. It is people living in single family homes, often nicer than most of the homes zoned for WSHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

It's not an "open secret" because it's not true. The people committing residency fraud are people whose families have the time and money to transport them to and from school.

Poor people have plenty of time and most have access to cars.

The kids, and probably many teachers, all know who it is. It is not the poor kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

So moving about 40-50 kids from one pocket (10 or so per grade) to then turn around and add in the RVES/Lewis kids isn’t solving this at all.

So you're making the case for wider boundary changes.

No- I’m calling out the hypocrisy. If WSHS is overcrowded and Lewis is lower enrollment, why would you move kids from WSHS (not to Lewis) just to move Lewis kids into WSHS? How does that help Lewis? How does that help WSHS?

DP. None of the Thru Consulting recommendations to date moved Lewis kids to West Springfield. They just moved West Springfield kids to South County and Lake Braddock. So if they do something different next time and propose to move some Lewis kids to West Springfield it’s possible they’d propose to move even more West Springfield kids to Lewis. Who really knows?

The Springfield school board rep has been publicly stating for months that she won't support grandfathering WSHS students because she wants to move Lewis/Rolling Valley kids into their spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

So moving about 40-50 kids from one pocket (10 or so per grade) to then turn around and add in the RVES/Lewis kids isn’t solving this at all.

So you're making the case for wider boundary changes.

No- I’m calling out the hypocrisy. If WSHS is overcrowded and Lewis is lower enrollment, why would you move kids from WSHS (not to Lewis) just to move Lewis kids into WSHS? How does that help Lewis? How does that help WSHS?

DP. None of the Thru Consulting recommendations to date moved Lewis kids to West Springfield. They just moved West Springfield kids to South County and Lake Braddock. So if they do something different next time and propose to move some Lewis kids to West Springfield it’s possible they’d propose to move even more West Springfield kids to Lewis. Who really knows?

The Springfield school board rep has been publicly stating for months that she won't support grandfathering WSHS students because she wants to move Lewis/Rolling Valley kids into their spots.

They’ve now formally committed in Policy 8130 to grandfathering current students when there is a boundary change (other than one associated with the opening of a new school or the closure of an existing one) by unanimous vote. That included Sandy Anderson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

FCPS also needs to confirm residency with utility bulls or leases before rezoning any school

This was brought up in a meeting with a SB member & while that member seemed to agree, they also shared that the position to check residency in central office isn’t even a 12 month position.

That’s a dumb excuse on their part. They could hire a bunch of temps especially if they offered WFH. Or even if they couldn’t due to security concerns, they could hire some temp folks and let them come in part time during school hours or evenings or weekends. You could get a full residency audit done in a few months.

DP.

They won’t do wide-scale residency checks. It’s an open FCPS secret that more poors are committing residency fraud than higher SES. For every loudoun county student caught there’d be several housekeeper’s kids caught.

It's not an "open secret" because it's not true. The people committing residency fraud are people whose families have the time and money to transport them to and from school.

My kids are at one of the Rt. 1 schools (MVHS and West Potomac pyramids.) I've heard rumors for years that there are students at every school along the Rt. 1 corridor who actually live in PG county. The closest elementary school along Rt. 1 is only about 4 miles across the border from MD, so it's not that far. Our Kiss N Ride line always has several cars with MD plates. Maybe they are nannies but maybe the rumors are true.

Of course it is true. VA schools are much better than MD schools.

[Anonymous]

Frankly I do not view split feeders and attendance islands as that big an issue. These are known when families buy their houses. If they do not want that risk they can buy elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly I do not view split feeders and attendance islands as that big an issue. These are known when families buy their houses. If they do not want that risk they can buy elsewhere.

There will always be a split feeder of some sort, because there’s no way that they can neatly create these pyramids without having schools with disproportionate enrollment.

[Anonymous]

The school board never explained why this comprehensive review and the perpetual 5 year reviews are needed. And to my knowledge never even got around to defining some of their criteria. So what are we actually doing here guys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above all else, it’s the arrogance of the school board members that really angers me. They heard from us five years ago when they tried to change boundaries that we don’t want them moved. But throughout the whole process, they continue to ignore public opinion on boundaries.

It’s the, “we know best” and “we are hearing from people who want this, trust me”. That gets me. When asked if our board member was hearing from people in our boundary that wanted this, she changed the subject to another neighborhood. Why? Because no one that I’ve come across in our small pocket wants this unnecessary change. We aren’t the only neighborhood in her constituency with a similar response.

They haven’t even identified the problem they are trying to solve by redistricting.

What is their WHY?

I'm one of the frequent WSHS posters and I'm not against the idea of boundary change. But you need to be targeted and solving an actual problem, like the Coates situation. The community needs to be behind the change and there needs to be liberal "phasing" (i.e. grandfathering) for families. That's what they've done in the past and despite their whole "we haven't changed boundaries in 40 years" spiel, they have changed boundaries for schools. Many times. This whole process seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Whatever their original intent was (moving kids so they could find space for universal pre-K; moving kids to even out FARMS rates), they've stepped back from that in the light of intense community pushback. The question is what they'll end up proposing.

You know the problem being solved for WSHS is overcrowding.

It's not overcrowded and the CIP numbers in all of the ES schools are falling, not rising. There is no new construction inside the boundary. But maybe WSHS is being targeted so someone can move the small number of Rolling Valley kids in really nice houses to WSHS and out of Lewis.

Exactly this.

Technically it is overcrowded by 275 students. Roughly 11% over the Design Capacity.

So moving about 40-50 kids from one pocket (10 or so per grade) to then turn around and add in the RVES/Lewis kids isn’t solving this at all.

So you're making the case for wider boundary changes.

No- I’m calling out the hypocrisy. If WSHS is overcrowded and Lewis is lower enrollment, why would you move kids from WSHS (not to Lewis) just to move Lewis kids into WSHS? How does that help Lewis? How does that help WSHS?

DP. None of the Thru Consulting recommendations to date moved Lewis kids to West Springfield. They just moved West Springfield kids to South County and Lake Braddock. So if they do something different next time and propose to move some Lewis kids to West Springfield it’s possible they’d propose to move even more West Springfield kids to Lewis. Who really knows?

The Springfield school board rep has been publicly stating for months that she won't support grandfathering WSHS students because she wants to move Lewis/Rolling Valley kids into their spots.

Voting for the phasing policy was the least she could do after so many groups met with her to advocate for their children. Still, she continues to be the loudest voice for the Lewis/RVES neighborhood- an area that she is making her personal project in spite of other neighborhoods who have voiced concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The school board never explained why this comprehensive review and the perpetual 5 year reviews are needed. And to my knowledge never even got around to defining some of their criteria. So what are we actually doing here guys?

Yes, they did. Go back to last year’s discussions about policy 8130. Lots of explanation about the need and the criteria (which is also listed in the policy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board never explained why this comprehensive review and the perpetual 5 year reviews are needed. And to my knowledge never even got around to defining some of their criteria. So what are we actually doing here guys?

Yes, they did. Go back to last year’s discussions about policy 8130. Lots of explanation about the need and the criteria (which is also listed in the policy).

DP. The criteria were just pretexts to make equity-driven changes but then they chickened out so now we’re left with a bunch of ridiculous chicken-sh*t proposals that most of those affected oppose.

Total nonsense. Fix Coates and call it a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board never explained why this comprehensive review and the perpetual 5 year reviews are needed. And to my knowledge never even got around to defining some of their criteria. So what are we actually doing here guys?

Yes, they did. Go back to last year’s discussions about policy 8130. Lots of explanation about the need and the criteria (which is also listed in the policy).

I have listened, and there’s really not. I’ve listened to board meetings, governance meetings, you name it, and all I’ve heard on equitable access is a passing reference from Sizemore heizer that she’s explained what it means to people, but it’s clear she’s never done so publicly. Neither has the board.

Don’t take my word for it though, ask your local BRAC member if they’ve ever heard an explanation for what it means.