Reply to APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]He may be right.  If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change.  What procedural defect is being claimed?  Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote.  The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote.    Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?  [/quote]

Here's what the policy says you need to do for a boundary change:

When  the  Superintendent  has  determined  that  one  or  more  of  the  conditions  above  exists  and that boundary changes should be considered, the Superintendent shall recommend to the SchoolBoard  the  process  for  consideration  of  boundary  changes.    The  recommended  framework  shall include:

1.The proposed schedule for the boundary change process, 
2.Identification of the schools and communities to be affected, and 
3.A community   engagement   plan   and   process   to   keep   affected   schools   and communities informed throughout the consideration of boundary changes.

The School Board shall act on the recommendation

So yeah, they've done that. [/quote]

The one question I have is why they’ve refused to call this a boundary change.  Are there annoying procedural requirements you can avoid by treating it as something other than a boundary process? Or maybe they’re just trying to be very clear about this being a 2-step process.  I’m not familiar enough with school board rules to know if they were trying to bypass something or if this really is just semantics.  Aside from calling it not a boundary change, they seem to have followed the rule quoted above.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics