Reply to APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The Staff can't win here.  If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to.  They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.  [/quote]

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work".  They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this.  I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have.  Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it.  But they're NOT showing.  [/quote]

If they issued a full boundary map, people would start fighting micro battles about their individual planning unit. Look at how many people saw the representative boundary map and wanted to know which streets the lines were on so they could decide whether or not they cared. I think it's pretty clear from the maps and information presented that more people will be better off with program moves than without. Not EVERYONE will be better off but more people than if they left all buildings in place. Haven't people been asking them to stop making piecemeal decisions and to think strategically? That's what is finally happening. We can have the boundary thunderdome later.[/quote]

+100  It's bad enough they have to deal with the freaking out of the McKinley/Key communities.  Put the whole boundary change out there and then you are dealing with the entire district of complaining micromanagers.  One thing at a time.  I wouldn't blame them if they just make a boundary decision and don't even put it up for community comment, other than the couple weeks before presenting to the board and the board approval vote.  The community has shown that they are incapable of being good-faith contributors to the process.  [/quote]

Just a side note.  I’m pretty sure state law requires school districts to give notice and opportunity to comment if a boundary change will impact a certain percentage of residents. So no, even if they wanted to just push it through, they’re probably required to suffer through a lot of public bickering. I honestly don’t remember the particulars of the law - I’m sure someone out there can pull the citation.  I wonder if the broken record comment from staff about the location decision not constituting a boundary decision somehow ties into what is and is not required under that law.[/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