Reply to Boundary Review Meetings

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Boundary Review Meetings"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I understand it's way too late to ask this...but what are the schools that are seriously overcrowded that necessitate this boundary review to begin with? Are there a few that need immediate addressing and the rest are tweaks "just because"? The SB keeps trumpeting this "first comprehensive boundary review in 40 years" stat that I can't imagine anyone cares about. Could the actual problems be fixed and leave mostly everyone else alone?

Again, I realize I'm really late to be asking this but only got involved in following this in the spring.[/quote]

My theory is they were originally going to make much bigger changes to balance SES across schools. But then Trump got elected and they knew doing so w ou ils make them a target of the administration. Now to save face they still have to go through with it but it’s stupid because they are hardly solving any actual problems mostly just moving kids for no real reason. [/quote]

No. The communities with power organized and mobilized. Some were the ones at the top of SB list to move. Local politics is what happened.[/quote]Maybe local politics, but the initiator was One Fairfax under the previous Board.  But Trump and the Supremes made SES-driven changes problematic.  Result was saving face/redoing 8130 to focus on distances/islands/etc. and stirring the pot every 5 years.[/quote]

Yes, I am assuming that they will do very little this time around, but they got the every five year review policy change through, and they are hoping for a different administration when the next boundary review comes up.  [/quote]

Sigh. The uncertainty drives families to look elsewhere. The five year review policy is uber dumb.[/quote]

I'm not sure it's "uber dumb."  The main issue is whether there's adequate reason to change any boundaries, before any boundaries are changed.  But there's always going to be some uncertainty, and they've changed boundaries to many schools on an ad hoc basis in the past.  Regular reviews don't necessarily increase that uncertainty, and they could alleviate it for some people if they at least know that boundaries are going to be stable for the next five years.  [/quote]

But they aren't stable for five years.

This map building is a 2 year process.  Then a year of people fighting the changes and flipping out, followed by the tremendous disruption of the actual rezoning.

It is guaranteeing over 4 years of continuous chaos and disruption, with the 5th year being everyone gearing up for the next fight.

The 5 year process is short sighted and horribly disruptive.

If they felt they must put a fixed timeline in mandatory rezoning, tge smartest way would be to mandate it every 10 years on the year following the census year.

Then, at least, we would have a stable timeline as well as actual data on growth patterns.[/quote]

With a five-year review, you get stable boundaries for five-year periods, even if potential boundary adjustments are discussed within those increments.

It seems to be the 10-year model would only work if accompanied by the ability to make ad hoc adjustments if there are exigent circumstances.  Otherwise waiting a full decade to fix a major problem seems too long.

And then if you allow for ad hoc changes to address exigent circumstances, you’re kind of conceding that the periodic adjustments can be for relatively unimportant reasons.

So, again, I don’t think the argument really ought to be over the frequency of the review so much as the threshold for making changes. [/quote]There's no reason at all to have added the County-wide 5 year review. They screw around with the CIP every year, ad hoc adjustments are in the policy and adjustments happen all the time.

[/quote]

I do think it’s more defensible to do ad hoc changes when truly needed than say we’ll do a county-wide review but only every 10 years.  [/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