FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS will now attempt to claim that the placement (or exclusion) of certain groups or people on BRAC is irrelevant because the “A” in BRAC is for “Advisory” and it us entirely within the discretion of the superintendent as to whether to give this “advice” any weight whatsoever.

Unfortunately for FCPS, this argument only further underscores the malicious intent and bias behind the exclusion of #35. If the BRAC is irrelevant, why target #35 if not for their history with FCPS? It is not a good look.

What a pickle. You set up a process to insulate yourself from claims from the NAACP and others and, along the way, you end up creating a record of malicious intent and bias that gives rise to suit that will torpedo your goal of targeted, socioeconomic-based rezoning. Whoops.

The tin foil hat factory called and wants the tin foil hat back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS will now attempt to claim that the placement (or exclusion) of certain groups or people on BRAC is irrelevant because the “A” in BRAC is for “Advisory” and it us entirely within the discretion of the superintendent as to whether to give this “advice” any weight whatsoever.

Unfortunately for FCPS, this argument only further underscores the malicious intent and bias behind the exclusion of #35. If the BRAC is irrelevant, why target #35 if not for their history with FCPS? It is not a good look.

What a pickle. You set up a process to insulate yourself from claims from the NAACP and others and, along the way, you end up creating a record of malicious intent and bias that gives rise to suit that will torpedo your goal of targeted, socioeconomic-based rezoning. Whoops.

The tin foil hat factory called and wants the tin foil hat back.

DP. The hayfield scandal called and they want your gaslighting back. Someday, it’d be worth comparing your cult-like worship of FCPS to the other political cult that we have in it country. You’re very similar to those people. You’re a pathetic shill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fairfax matters discovered a typo on a spreadsheet, maybe. Theres a reason no legitimate new outlet is running that “story” except a local blog.

I see what you did there. What makes a news outlet “legitimate”? Is WaPo “legitimate” under Bezos. Is WTOP legitimate in their “hard hitting” reporting? Would a larger news outlet national (WaPo) or even regional (pick one) outlet report on such a local issue? Or would you expect a local, county news outlet to report on it:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/area-residents-ask-what-happened-to-mother-no-35/article_b904ab6c-faac-11ef-9d3c-c3bb6b474982.html

Ah, but this particular reporter and this publication has reported on FCPS in the past so this must not be “legitimate.”

That is hilarious. Legitimately hilarious.

Thanks.

I really do not see how anyone can support the current boundary adjustment, given how obviously corrupted and biased the process has been shown to be:

“Scott Jones, a member of the local group FairFACTS Matters, which advocates on education issues, received a copy of the video and other documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by a local father. Parents and community members are now expressing outrage at the sequence of events captured in the video as they watch the segment on social media postings in local neighborhood groups.

The disclosure underscores deeper issues into the integrity, legitimacy, and transparency of the FCPS boundary review committee selection process, which requires members to sign non-disclosure agreements. The documents in the public records request included a file marked “Superintendent’s Boundary Review Committee,” which included a comment from Tracey Wynne, FCPS director of community relations, stating, “Each member has signed a limited non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in order to participate on the committee.”

For Jones, the selection process is “invalid” due to how FCPS officials allegedly mishandled it. He said the incident raises questions about whether FCPS officials intentionally selected only people who would rubber stamp the school district’s remapping of the district.

The public records documents released for the first time revealed all of the committee's members. A Dec. 11 Excel spreadsheet titled “Advisory Committee” includes the names of 87 people in a list marked “Confirmation NDA.” Of those listed, 22 are FCPS employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fairfax matters discovered a typo on a spreadsheet, maybe. Theres a reason no legitimate new outlet is running that “story” except a local blog.

I see what you did there. What makes a news outlet “legitimate”? Is WaPo “legitimate” under Bezos. Is WTOP legitimate in their “hard hitting” reporting? Would a larger news outlet national (WaPo) or even regional (pick one) outlet report on such a local issue? Or would you expect a local, county news outlet to report on it:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/area-residents-ask-what-happened-to-mother-no-35/article_b904ab6c-faac-11ef-9d3c-c3bb6b474982.html

Ah, but this particular reporter and this publication has reported on FCPS in the past so this must not be “legitimate.”

That is hilarious. Legitimately hilarious.

Thanks.

I really do not see how anyone can support the current boundary adjustment, given how obviously corrupted and biased the process has been shown to be:

“Scott Jones, a member of the local group FairFACTS Matters, which advocates on education issues, received a copy of the video and other documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by a local father. Parents and community members are now expressing outrage at the sequence of events captured in the video as they watch the segment on social media postings in local neighborhood groups.

The disclosure underscores deeper issues into the integrity, legitimacy, and transparency of the FCPS boundary review committee selection process, which requires members to sign non-disclosure agreements. The documents in the public records request included a file marked “Superintendent’s Boundary Review Committee,” which included a comment from Tracey Wynne, FCPS director of community relations, stating, “Each member has signed a limited non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in order to participate on the committee.”

For Jones, the selection process is “invalid” due to how FCPS officials allegedly mishandled it. He said the incident raises questions about whether FCPS officials intentionally selected only people who would rubber stamp the school district’s remapping of the district.

The public records documents released for the first time revealed all of the committee's members. A Dec. 11 Excel spreadsheet titled “Advisory Committee” includes the names of 87 people in a list marked “Confirmation NDA.” Of those listed, 22 are FCPS employees.

That poster doesn’t care about facts. She’s got her own alternative facts to fit her narrative of unwavering support for corrupt FCPS.

[Anonymous]

The convenient excuses for why potential critics of the redistricting plans were omitted from consideration as BRAC members while left-wing activists like Hampton, Hall, and Rigby were hand-picked for slots demonstrates the process is rigged.

Michelle Reid can flounder some more but this school system is broken. She is not remotely competent enough to run a school system this large, and she’s made a mess of every major issue that’s come to her attention, including the Hayfield scandal and the boundary review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS will now attempt to claim that the placement (or exclusion) of certain groups or people on BRAC is irrelevant because the “A” in BRAC is for “Advisory” and it us entirely within the discretion of the superintendent as to whether to give this “advice” any weight whatsoever.

Unfortunately for FCPS, this argument only further underscores the malicious intent and bias behind the exclusion of #35. If the BRAC is irrelevant, why target #35 if not for their history with FCPS? It is not a good look.

What a pickle. You set up a process to insulate yourself from claims from the NAACP and others and, along the way, you end up creating a record of malicious intent and bias that gives rise to suit that will torpedo your goal of targeted, socioeconomic-based rezoning. Whoops.

The tin foil hat factory called and wants the tin foil hat back.

The evidence supports what it supports. That’s how the law works. BTW, ask your counsel what the terms “spoliation” and “adverse inference” mean. Litigation digs deeper than FOIA requests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fairfax matters discovered a typo on a spreadsheet, maybe. Theres a reason no legitimate new outlet is running that “story” except a local blog.

I see what you did there. What makes a news outlet “legitimate”? Is WaPo “legitimate” under Bezos. Is WTOP legitimate in their “hard hitting” reporting? Would a larger news outlet national (WaPo) or even regional (pick one) outlet report on such a local issue? Or would you expect a local, county news outlet to report on it:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/area-residents-ask-what-happened-to-mother-no-35/article_b904ab6c-faac-11ef-9d3c-c3bb6b474982.html

Ah, but this particular reporter and this publication has reported on FCPS in the past so this must not be “legitimate.”

That is hilarious. Legitimately hilarious.

Thanks.

I really do not see how anyone can support the current boundary adjustment, given how obviously corrupted and biased the process has been shown to be:

“Scott Jones, a member of the local group FairFACTS Matters, which advocates on education issues, received a copy of the video and other documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by a local father. Parents and community members are now expressing outrage at the sequence of events captured in the video as they watch the segment on social media postings in local neighborhood groups.

The disclosure underscores deeper issues into the integrity, legitimacy, and transparency of the FCPS boundary review committee selection process, which requires members to sign non-disclosure agreements. The documents in the public records request included a file marked “Superintendent’s Boundary Review Committee,” which included a comment from Tracey Wynne, FCPS director of community relations, stating, “Each member has signed a limited non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in order to participate on the committee.”

For Jones, the selection process is “invalid” due to how FCPS officials allegedly mishandled it. He said the incident raises questions about whether FCPS officials intentionally selected only people who would rubber stamp the school district’s remapping of the district.

The public records documents released for the first time revealed all of the committee's members. A Dec. 11 Excel spreadsheet titled “Advisory Committee” includes the names of 87 people in a list marked “Confirmation NDA.” Of those listed, 22 are FCPS employees.

That poster doesn’t care about facts. She’s got her own alternative facts to fit her narrative of unwavering support for corrupt FCPS.

Gaslight much? “That poster,” was me, and you failed to realize I quoted a reputable media source:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/area-residents-ask-what-happened-to-mother-no-35/article_b904ab6c-faac-11ef-9d3c-c3bb6b474982.html


Question for you PP: You work for FCPS don’t you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe state Attorney General Jason Miyares needs to be made aware of what's happening in FCPS.

+1000

Long overdue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fairfax matters discovered a typo on a spreadsheet, maybe. Theres a reason no legitimate new outlet is running that “story” except a local blog.

I see what you did there. What makes a news outlet “legitimate”? Is WaPo “legitimate” under Bezos. Is WTOP legitimate in their “hard hitting” reporting? Would a larger news outlet national (WaPo) or even regional (pick one) outlet report on such a local issue? Or would you expect a local, county news outlet to report on it:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/area-residents-ask-what-happened-to-mother-no-35/article_b904ab6c-faac-11ef-9d3c-c3bb6b474982.html

Ah, but this particular reporter and this publication has reported on FCPS in the past so this must not be “legitimate.”

That is hilarious. Legitimately hilarious.

Thanks.

I really do not see how anyone can support the current boundary adjustment, given how obviously corrupted and biased the process has been shown to be:

“Scott Jones, a member of the local group FairFACTS Matters, which advocates on education issues, received a copy of the video and other documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by a local father. Parents and community members are now expressing outrage at the sequence of events captured in the video as they watch the segment on social media postings in local neighborhood groups.

The disclosure underscores deeper issues into the integrity, legitimacy, and transparency of the FCPS boundary review committee selection process, which requires members to sign non-disclosure agreements. The documents in the public records request included a file marked “Superintendent’s Boundary Review Committee,” which included a comment from Tracey Wynne, FCPS director of community relations, stating, “Each member has signed a limited non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in order to participate on the committee.”

For Jones, the selection process is “invalid” due to how FCPS officials allegedly mishandled it. He said the incident raises questions about whether FCPS officials intentionally selected only people who would rubber stamp the school district’s remapping of the district.

The public records documents released for the first time revealed all of the committee's members. A Dec. 11 Excel spreadsheet titled “Advisory Committee” includes the names of 87 people in a list marked “Confirmation NDA.” Of those listed, 22 are FCPS employees.

That poster doesn’t care about facts. She’s got her own alternative facts to fit her narrative of unwavering support for corrupt FCPS.

Gaslight much? “That poster,” was me, and you failed to realize I quoted a reputable media source:

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/area-residents-ask-what-happened-to-mother-no-35/article_b904ab6c-faac-11ef-9d3c-c3bb6b474982.html


Question for you PP: You work for FCPS don’t you?

I’m saying the people who you were responding to are gaslighting us by defending gatehouse even though the evidence overwhelmingly shoes corruption.

[Anonymous]

FairFACTS Matters posted this yesterday. (Disclaimer: I haven't given them money but I do subscribe to their Facebook page for updates.)

This seems...bad? I don't know if you re-do the BRAC at this point, but it seems pretty messed up to disqualify that many residents?

BRAC FOIA UPDATE 4 - 56% of Parents/Caregivers Were Deemed Ineligible ahead of selections:
School Board members, FCPS Staff, and Dr. Reid have been dancing around revelations from the FOIA documents we have been reporting on. In a response to one member Dr. Reid stated “the process was not as smooth as we had hoped;” however, despite knowing these issues existed, FCPS Staff went on to mislead the community.
The attached screenshot from an email sent on November 20, 2024, states “1600 parents/caregivers applied” for the BRAC, diectly implying the selections were made from 1600+ parents/caregivers, but the FOIA documents show FCPS declared nearly 1,000 parents/caregivers ineligible. The totals for each pyramid found to be eligible are posted below, but if you add all the number together, and ignore duplicates that persisted in each list, FCPS made the selections from 717 individuals, which included faculty, parents, and caregivers.
Parents who reached out to inquire about why they responded to all emails but were still declared ineligible were told “there was a known error in the system.”
It’s time to recall the BRAC and re-select all the members. The School Board may refuse to hold Dr. Reid and her staff to any ethical standards, but we must hold them all accountable!
Total deemed eligible by Pyramid:
Annandale - 16 (Includes TJ Parents)
Centerville - 6
Chantilly- 34
Edison - 23
Fairfax - 16
Falls Church - 10
Hayfield - 17
Herndon - 14
Justice - 16
Lake Braddock - 30
Langley -143
Lewis - 17
Madison - 32
Marshall - 20
McLean - 28
Mount Vernon - 16
Oakton - 34
Robinson - 26
South County - 18
Westfield - 13
West Springfield - 117
West Potomac - 31
Woodson - 40

[Anonymous]

What was the reason for declaring so many people ineligible? Look how low some of the numbers are-6 parents total from Centreville pyramid?

[Anonymous]

It’s time to recall the BRAC and re-select all the members. The School Board may refuse to hold Dr. Reid and her staff to any ethical standards.

But we - the parents of FCPS students - must hold them all accountable.

Pause the boundary review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was the reason for declaring so many people ineligible? Look how low some of the numbers are-6 parents total from Centreville pyramid?

Is it because people didn’t reply to all the emails that they sent, or didn’t fill out the form fully? I’m just spitballing. It would be nice if they would actually say the reason because otherwise, people are going to assume the worst, and maybe with good reason. Like some kind of cross-check of who was involved with groups critical of the school board like OpenFCPS and the previous boundary discussion groups.

[Anonymous]

Interesting:

I was not an applicant in my high school pyramid. When the list first came out, there was only one selected from my pyramid on there with the other being TBA. There are two there now--and from what I have determined from googling, they are both in the same elementary school boundary. I may be wrong about that, but it does not seem fair to me if it is true.

I did wonder if another second person on the list refused to sign the NDA. Doesn't it seem a little odd that the people representing the community are not supposed to share information?

Not only does this affect the high school boundary, but also all the other elementary school boundaries. Aren't these people supposed to represent the whole pyramid?

This whole process, from the very beginning, smells. We have at least two Hispanic organizations represented, two African American organizations, multiple special ed organizations, etc. AAP is represented. All these special interests and yet an organization that challenges FCPS on some decisions is not there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was the reason for declaring so many people ineligible? Look how low some of the numbers are-6 parents total from Centreville pyramid?

Is it because people didn’t reply to all the emails that they sent, or didn’t fill out the form fully? I’m just spitballing. It would be nice if they would actually say the reason because otherwise, people are going to assume the worst, and maybe with good reason. Like some kind of cross-check of who was involved with groups critical of the school board like OpenFCPS and the previous boundary discussion groups.

It appears that if a household had 2 people apply for the committee (presumably spouses which was not disallowed by the application and emails) FCPS threw out the second parent/spouse before selecting the committee. This should not have happened.

There was also at least one person (#35) who was publicly against rezoning, who was removed from the committee list after being selected by the random number generator.