FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would suggest that the downfall of FCPS is not the superintendent or the lack of discipline but rather the insanely litigious and vocal parents who are complete idiots!

Take your meds, dear.

When FCPS launches a county-wide boundary review that approaches many of the key considerations (such as whether we should have 6-8 middle schools, the future of AAP centers, and the potential elimination of IB) ass-backwards, it naturally invites a lot of attention and criticism.

I doubt this will stop them, despite this new “rumor” (which sounds like wishful thinking), but parents are the only ones left to challenge them. The SB is now a one-party echo chamber where even the members who disagree with some of the decisions will not speak out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would suggest that the downfall of FCPS is not the superintendent or the lack of discipline but rather the insanely litigious and vocal parents who are complete idiots!

You already attempted to make this comment (which included a criticism of open government laws, just like in Russia). Repeating your drivel doesn’t legitimize it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would suggest that the downfall of FCPS is not the superintendent or the lack of discipline but rather the insanely litigious and vocal parents who are complete idiots!

Take your meds, dear.

When FCPS launches a county-wide boundary review that approaches many of the key considerations (such as whether we should have 6-8 middle schools, the future of AAP centers, and the potential elimination of IB) ass-backwards, it naturally invites a lot of attention and criticism.

I doubt this will stop them, despite this new “rumor” (which sounds like wishful thinking), but parents are the only ones left to challenge them. The SB is now a one-party echo chamber where even the members who disagree with some of the decisions will not speak out.

6-8 middle schools can’t happen as most middle schools are overcrowded. They would need to have an additional middle school per pyramid to make that work. AAP Centers should go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would suggest that the downfall of FCPS is not the superintendent or the lack of discipline but rather the insanely litigious and vocal parents who are complete idiots!

Take your meds, dear.

When FCPS launches a county-wide boundary review that approaches many of the key considerations (such as whether we should have 6-8 middle schools, the future of AAP centers, and the potential elimination of IB) ass-backwards, it naturally invites a lot of attention and criticism.

I doubt this will stop them, despite this new “rumor” (which sounds like wishful thinking), but parents are the only ones left to challenge them. The SB is now a one-party echo chamber where even the members who disagree with some of the decisions will not speak out.

6-8 middle schools can’t happen as most middle schools are overcrowded. They would need to have an additional middle school per pyramid to make that work. AAP Centers should go away.

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion.

Unfortunately you are not the czar and these issues are now emerging during the boundary review. They should have been resolved first.

[Anonymous]

Seems to me that the most litigious people are those who have disabled--or think they do.

Also, didn't the trans people sue a few years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would suggest that the downfall of FCPS is not the superintendent or the lack of discipline but rather the insanely litigious and vocal parents who are complete idiots!

Take your meds, dear.

When FCPS launches a county-wide boundary review that approaches many of the key considerations (such as whether we should have 6-8 middle schools, the future of AAP centers, and the potential elimination of IB) ass-backwards, it naturally invites a lot of attention and criticism.

I doubt this will stop them, despite this new “rumor” (which sounds like wishful thinking), but parents are the only ones left to challenge them. The SB is now a one-party echo chamber where even the members who disagree with some of the decisions will not speak out.

6-8 middle schools can’t happen as most middle schools are overcrowded. They would need to have an additional middle school per pyramid to make that work. AAP Centers should go away.

This is a direct dream of Superintendent Reid and she has publicly posted this intention with the rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would suggest that the downfall of FCPS is not the superintendent or the lack of discipline but rather the insanely litigious and vocal parents who are complete idiots!

Take your meds, dear.

When FCPS launches a county-wide boundary review that approaches many of the key considerations (such as whether we should have 6-8 middle schools, the future of AAP centers, and the potential elimination of IB) ass-backwards, it naturally invites a lot of attention and criticism.

I doubt this will stop them, despite this new “rumor” (which sounds like wishful thinking), but parents are the only ones left to challenge them. The SB is now a one-party echo chamber where even the members who disagree with some of the decisions will not speak out.

6-8 middle schools can’t happen as most middle schools are overcrowded. They would need to have an additional middle school per pyramid to make that work. AAP Centers should go away.

This is a direct dream of Superintendent Reid and she has publicly posted this intention with the rezoning.

It’s as good a reflection as any of the fact that she has so little knowledge of the FCPS school district. It would be a logistical nightmare and eat up the capital budget (the most recent of which included no money to create more MS).

She might as well just write some meaningless blog posts on educational policy from a condo overlooking the Puget Sound.

[Anonymous]

They should just start with:
1) Shifting all but maybe 2 schools to AP and
2) Cutting back on any NEW language transfer approvals to schools that are already crowded.

Fine enough with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should just start with:
1) Shifting all but maybe 2 schools to AP and
2) Cutting back on any NEW language transfer approvals to schools that are already crowded.

Fine enough with that.

Crowded schools can already limit or stop new transfers, whether it’s for a language, AP, IB, or some other reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumor is boundary changes may pause.

I’d be much more willing to support this sb if that were to happen.

That's what happened in 2019. They stopped working on it before the election and picked up again later when no one was paying attention.

So, the "nuclear boundary" plan can was kicked down the road and we're dealing with this now.

Oh yeah, I’d still advocacy against future boundary changes. Not saying I’m going to rest on my laurels.[/quote

So, the same position blue voters took in 2019, and here we are.

At some point the democrats are going to call your bluff and follow through on their plans.

Maybe, this time.

[Anonymous]

Oh yeah, I’d still advocacy against future boundary changes. Not saying I’m going to rest on my laurels.

So, the same position blue voters took in 2019, and here we are.

At some point the democrats are going to call your bluff and follow through on their plans.

Maybe, this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh yeah, I’d still advocacy against future boundary changes. Not saying I’m going to rest on my laurels.

So, the same position blue voters took in 2019, and here we are.

At some point the democrats are going to call your bluff and follow through on their plans.

Maybe, this time.

If they delay, I feel like this exercise will make folks be a little wiser with their vote, and it’ll also be important for us all to sus out their boundary positions before the vote.

[Anonymous]

It needs to be paused. Too many changes at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just start with:
1) Shifting all but maybe 2 schools to AP and
2) Cutting back on any NEW language transfer approvals to schools that are already crowded.

Fine enough with that.

Crowded schools can already limit or stop new transfers, whether it’s for a language, AP, IB, or some other reason.

Then why do people keep saying WS is overcrowded? It seems to allow transfers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It needs to be paused. Too many changes at once.

The incompetence that FairFACTS Matters has uncovered relating to the selection of BRAC members raises bigger issues as to whether those currently running FCPS and on the School Board could possibly be trusted with fair and valid county-wide boundary changes.

FCPS has never had a more incompetent Superintendent and School Board and they need to pause the boundary study, figure out how to improve their processes, and form a new advisory committee (one where obnoxious School Board shills aren't rewarded with seats for their long history of sucking up to the School Board) before doing any further work.