FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read on this thread that the genesis of the boundary review is One Fairfax.

James Walkinshaw endorses the use of One Fairfax to shape policy:

“… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/connect-with-county-leaders-podcast-supervisor-james-walkinshaw

If oppose equity based boundary review, do not vote for James Walkinshaw.

Walkinshaw is running for Congress now. Congress won’t take up school boundaries in FCPS. And the comments you alluded to had to do with considering One Fairfax when looking at bus routes. Do you really think the Langley crowd takes the Fairfax Connector to their jobs?

The quote demonstrates that Walkinshaw embraced One Fairfax as a tool to drive policy.

It is well established that the current boundary review is born of that approach.

If you disagree with that approach, do not vote for that candidate.

Taking into account who actually rides buses when evaluating local bus routes strikes me as quite sensible. Take your MAGA propaganda to another forum.

Bring your reading comprehension to this forum.

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/connect-with-county-leaders-podcast-supervisor-james-walkinshaw

People are not as dumb as you hope they are.

You can’t just say “MAGA” and cause people to ignore what Walkinshaw actually said or what this boundary review is really about.

If you disagree with using One Fairfax to send your kids to another school then don’t vote for a candidate who has gone on the record strongly endorsing One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.”

More bloviating. Always sounds like the same half-dozen old cranks from Great Falls.

I am the PP. I am not from Great Falls. Stating facts and quoting a politician’s own words is not boasting.

If you disagree with using One Fairfax to send your kids to another school then don’t vote for a candidate who has gone on the record strongly endorsing One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.”

A vote for Walkinshaw is an endorsement for using One Fairfax to shuffle your kids around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read on this thread that the genesis of the boundary review is One Fairfax.

James Walkinshaw endorses the use of One Fairfax to shape policy:

“… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/connect-with-county-leaders-podcast-supervisor-james-walkinshaw

If oppose equity based boundary review, do not vote for James Walkinshaw.

Walkinshaw is running for Congress now. Congress won’t take up school boundaries in FCPS. And the comments you alluded to had to do with considering One Fairfax when looking at bus routes. Do you really think the Langley crowd takes the Fairfax Connector to their jobs?

The quote demonstrates that Walkinshaw embraced One Fairfax as a tool to drive policy.

It is well established that the current boundary review is born of that approach.

If you disagree with that approach, do not vote for that candidate.

Taking into account who actually rides buses when evaluating local bus routes strikes me as quite sensible. Take your MAGA propaganda to another forum.

Bring your reading comprehension to this forum.

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/connect-with-county-leaders-podcast-supervisor-james-walkinshaw

People are not as dumb as you hope they are.

You can’t just say “MAGA” and cause people to ignore what Walkinshaw actually said or what this boundary review is really about.

If you disagree with using One Fairfax to send your kids to another school then don’t vote for a candidate who has gone on the record strongly endorsing One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.”

More bloviating. Always sounds like the same half-dozen old cranks from Great Falls.

I am the PP. I am not from Great Falls. Stating facts and quoting a politician’s own words is not boasting.

If you disagree with using One Fairfax to send your kids to another school then don’t vote for a candidate who has gone on the record strongly endorsing One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.”

A vote for Walkinshaw is an endorsement for using One Fairfax to shuffle your kids around.

DP. How is "One Fairfax" even relevant to the boundary proposals when:

* They haven't proposed to move anyone out of Langley;

* They haven't proposed to move anyone into Lewis;

* They have proposed to move the poorest part of McLean to Falls Church; and

* The new KAA school will likely result in a new, low FARMS high school next to Carson and an increase in the poverty at Westfield?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read on this thread that the genesis of the boundary review is One Fairfax.

James Walkinshaw endorses the use of One Fairfax to shape policy:

“… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/connect-with-county-leaders-podcast-supervisor-james-walkinshaw

If oppose equity based boundary review, do not vote for James Walkinshaw.

Walkinshaw is running for Congress now. Congress won’t take up school boundaries in FCPS. And the comments you alluded to had to do with considering One Fairfax when looking at bus routes. Do you really think the Langley crowd takes the Fairfax Connector to their jobs?

The quote demonstrates that Walkinshaw embraced One Fairfax as a tool to drive policy.

It is well established that the current boundary review is born of that approach.

If you disagree with that approach, do not vote for that candidate.

Taking into account who actually rides buses when evaluating local bus routes strikes me as quite sensible. Take your MAGA propaganda to another forum.

Bring your reading comprehension to this forum.

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/connect-with-county-leaders-podcast-supervisor-james-walkinshaw

People are not as dumb as you hope they are.

You can’t just say “MAGA” and cause people to ignore what Walkinshaw actually said or what this boundary review is really about.

If you disagree with using One Fairfax to send your kids to another school then don’t vote for a candidate who has gone on the record strongly endorsing One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.”

More bloviating. Always sounds like the same half-dozen old cranks from Great Falls.

I am the PP. I am not from Great Falls. Stating facts and quoting a politician’s own words is not boasting.

If you disagree with using One Fairfax to send your kids to another school then don’t vote for a candidate who has gone on the record strongly endorsing One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.”

A vote for Walkinshaw is an endorsement for using One Fairfax to shuffle your kids around.

+1. She pretends that anyone who disagrees with her is from great falls. She’s literally been doing it for years. When her family is on summer vacation this place becomes a lot more neighborly. She attempts to cause a lot of division on here to advance her extreme agenda.

But we all know that the vast majority of the community is against boundary changes. That’s why she’s always scrambling unsuccessfully with her vitriol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the boundary review is getting scary for Reid:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/queen-reid-embattled-virginia-schools-boss-demands-personal-bodyguard-top-lavish-salary-perks.amp

At least now we know the name of the extremely prolific poster on this thread who obsessively posts “boundary changes for thee, but not for me.”

From the Fox article, “It's all 'equity for thee, but not for me,’" said Stephanie Lundquist-Arora, a local mother who has challenged Reid on numerous district policies.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the boundary review is getting scary for Reid:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/queen-reid-embattled-virginia-schools-boss-demands-personal-bodyguard-top-lavish-salary-perks.amp

At least now we know the name of the extremely prolific poster on this thread who obsessively posts “boundary changes for thee, but not for me.”

From the Fox article, “It's all 'equity for thee, but not for me,’" said Stephanie Lundquist-Arora, a local mother who has challenged Reid on numerous district policies.”

It's not that unusual a turn of phrase. Do a simple Google search.

Some DCUM posters specialize in conflating posters and also making up riddles so they can solve them incorrectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the boundary review is getting scary for Reid:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/queen-reid-embattled-virginia-schools-boss-demands-personal-bodyguard-top-lavish-salary-perks.amp

At least now we know the name of the extremely prolific poster on this thread who obsessively posts “boundary changes for thee, but not for me.”

From the Fox article, “It's all 'equity for thee, but not for me,’" said Stephanie Lundquist-Arora, a local mother who has challenged Reid on numerous district policies.”

Maybe, but the other side has a poster who gets anything about her removed here. However, I don't think "equity for thee, but not for me" is limited to Lundquist-Arora. Funny, though, that the one who verbally spoke out in that manner gets any criticism of her removed on this forum.

[Anonymous]

What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

Thank you for teeing it up one more time:

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how One Fairfax was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty...walkinshaw

A vote for Walkinshaw sends the message that you think that equity based boundary review is alright by you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

Thank you for teeing it up one more time:

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how One Fairfax was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty...walkinshaw

A vote for Walkinshaw sends the message that you think that equity based boundary review is alright by you.

Ha! And….. a vote against walkinshaw sends the message you want more trump chumps in congress. You want less FEMA, lessMedicaid and social Safety net, less military and more ICE, more pedophiles and more billionaires.

Who do you think you are foooling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

Thank you for teeing it up one more time:

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how One Fairfax was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty...walkinshaw

A vote for Walkinshaw sends the message that you think that equity based boundary review is alright by you.

Ha! And….. a vote against walkinshaw sends the message you want more trump chumps in congress. You want less FEMA, lessMedicaid and social Safety net, less military and more ICE, more pedophiles and more billionaires.

Who do you think you are foooling?

Not really. I can vote against one of the 435 reps based on how he treats an issue that affects me and my family and still oppose Trump.

No more blank checks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the boundary review is getting scary for Reid:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/queen-reid-embattled-virginia-schools-boss-demands-personal-bodyguard-top-lavish-salary-perks.amp

Oh look, ASRA NOMANI came to DCUM and posted the latest story she wrote.

WE KNOW IT'S YOU PROMOTING YOUR OWN STUPIDITY ASRA!!!!!

I hope everyone else realizes what a prolific poster she and her nephew are on DCUM. It's soooo obvious when one of them posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

Thank you for teeing it up one more time:

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how One Fairfax was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty...walkinshaw

A vote for Walkinshaw sends the message that you think that equity based boundary review is alright by you.

Ha! And….. a vote against walkinshaw sends the message you want more trump chumps in congress. You want less FEMA, lessMedicaid and social Safety net, less military and more ICE, more pedophiles and more billionaires.

Who do you think you are foooling?

Not really. I can vote against one of the 435 reps based on how he treats an issue that affects me and my family and still oppose Trump.

No more blank checks.

DP. You really are an idiot if you think Walkinshaw’s opponent for Congress would not be another vote for Trump’s agenda if elected. Just own that you’ve let your anxiety about a local boundary change that likely hasn’t even been proposed has turned you into full MAGA.