Reply to FCPS School Board candidates in Dranesville

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "FCPS School Board candidates in Dranesville"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]In fact, one of the main goals is to ensure community input before changing boundaries. That is why the moratorium was placed on administrative boundary changes.[/quote]

Not so sure that was going to be significant in the new policy.  Didn't Schultz bring that up in the work session?[/quote]

Administrative boundary changes even for new and unoccupied housing are totally gone in the draft 8130.  100+ houses at 7 and Towlston slated for Spring Hill not nearby under capacity Colvin Run.  FCSB needs scoping, intro meeting, and 3 public meetings on the faciltiies plural options, plus some work sessions and regular meetings?  All that to occur after houses occupied and mega trailers?  Then there's Top Golf becoming residences and that might be n the Edison pyramid.

[/quote]

Not sure that's the right outcome; one would like to think the administrative reassignment of a new development out of an overcrowded school to an under-enrolled school could be done expeditiously.

Unfortunately, when the track record includes using the administrative route to move kids out of an under-enrolled school like Lee to West Springfield (and then getting another similar request from a different group of Lee parents), you can see why Brabrand wanted to change the process.  [/quote]

He has a point on admin boundary changes.

Doesn't explain why they pretended boundary policy hadn't been looked at in 30 years.

Doesn't explain why he can't say "One Fairfax" when talking to us but in work sessions says it over and over.

Doesn't explain why, if it was so important to keep McLean overcrowded while they revised policy, that they did a CIP amendment to consider McLean in September and stopped working on policy even though the plan in July was to vote on the new policy in September.[/quote]

You are a broken record.

There's a difference between amending an existing policy and taking a fresh look at the entire policy.  Most people would understand that.

I'm sure you'd have no difficulty getting Brabrand to discuss One Fairfax; that doesn't mean he has to use the phrase in every message he sends.

Many McLean parents wanted the CIP amendment so FCPS could start working on scoping a boundary study.   The students don't need to be held hostage either to a protracted discussion around the policy or to a bunch of right-wing jerks who want to keep kids in trailers to maximize the distress.

We know, by the way,  that One Great Falls only pushes this narrative because some Langley parents are bent out of shape over the possibility that their kids might be moved out of Langley some day.

[/quote]

So  who on the board will come forth with the minutes and videos to show the public that in the last thirty years they never read the entire policy over to consider what to change?

Will If it was so important to keep McLean overcrowded until a new policy was passed why did they halt work on policy to, as Keys Gamarra said, "stop the hemorrhaging?"

They were so adamant (except for, I think, only Mr. Moon who regrettably has dropped out of the race) earlier in the year.  Once the policy became a public issue that was clearly not going away,  it suddenly became unimportant and they could work on it later, now it was conveniently a matter of urgency to get kids out of trailers.

Langley parents aren't elected by the public.

The school board, that refused relief for McLean while they worked on policy
[/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