Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to be honest.

If they weren't so committed to saying things like "boundary policy is 30 years old and hasn't been revised" when it's already on its seventh version (they are working on 8)

If brabrand could say "one fairfax" to parents when supposedly clearing things up, they would be better off.

I think the crux of their comments was that they hadn’t taken a hard look in a long time at whether the considerations when making boundary adjustments in current Section IX of Policy 8130.7 are still fit-for-purpose. There are 14 considerations set forth, including “the socioeconomic characteristics of school populations,” but recent boundary changes have highlighted some factors and completely ignored others, and some factors are in conflict with others. It seems like an appropriate thing to re-examine.

As for Brabrand, his Back-to-School message from late August emphasized FCPS’s commitment to equity. Apparently he can’t win with you people: either he mentions equity and “One Fairfax” too often or not enough.

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I am pissed that they insist on lying.

If what they are doing would benefit all students, they should just come right out and make the case.

The fact that they refuse to do so just makes it seem a pet project, or perhaps an experiment.

Why can't brabrand say "one Fairfax" and stop pretending that boundary policy needs to be changed because schools are overcrowded?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Why would they need to change the policy in the first place. Sure, the basic policy was written a long time ago and it has been adjusted somewhat, but the reason for boundaries has not changed: some schools are overcrowded, and a few are underenrolled.
Distance and travel time have significant impacts--for students and for budget. It also affects community support, etc.

So, are they saying that community schools are unimportant? That is is more important to get "equal diversity" in each school? If that is the case, get ready for buses everywhere.

See 9:13. When you say there are 14 relevant considerations, some in conflict with others, it’s not clear there is really any guiding framework or consistency.

For example, the current policy cites “contiguous school boundaries” as a consideration, but a recent boundary change involving Fairfax HS created an attendance island. “School feeder patterns” are another consideration, but the recent Thoreau/Jackson redistricting turned Thoreau into a three-way split feeder and ignored the opportunity to align feeder patterns in the Madison pyramid. And, while socioeconomics are identified as a consideration, boundary changes affecting Annandale and Lee HS have concentrated poverty in the schools.

So people look at what’s happened and conclude the current policy isn’t being followed and there have been a lot of unintended consequences. The School Board wants to do better but groups like One Great Falls are having a giant hissy fit that socioeconomics might receive more prominence in a streamlined policy.

Anonymous wrote:

There was a lawsuit claiming the policy was not followed when Stuart was renamed. That lawsuit was tossed.

I don't know anything about the lawsuit, but the policy was not followed. And, School Board members planned it privately. Emails were released that proved that. Is it illegal? I don't know, but it is certainly against FCPS policy.

There was a lawsuit claiming the policy was not followed when Stuart was renamed. That lawsuit was tossed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Why would they need to change the policy in the first place. Sure, the basic policy was written a long time ago and it has been adjusted somewhat, but the reason for boundaries has not changed: some schools are overcrowded, and a few are underenrolled.
Distance and travel time have significant impacts--for students and for budget. It also affects community support, etc.

So, are they saying that community schools are unimportant? That is is more important to get "equal diversity" in each school? If that is the case, get ready for buses everywhere.

See 9:13. When you say there are 14 relevant considerations, some in conflict with others, it’s not clear there is really any guiding framework or consistency.

For example, the current policy cites “contiguous school boundaries” as a consideration, but a recent boundary change involving Fairfax HS created an attendance island. “School feeder patterns” are another consideration, but the recent Thoreau/Jackson redistricting turned Thoreau into a three-way split feeder and ignored the opportunity to align feeder patterns in the Madison pyramid. And, while socioeconomics are identified as a consideration, boundary changes affecting Annandale and Lee HS have concentrated poverty in the schools.

So people look at what’s happened and conclude the current policy isn’t being followed and there have been a lot of unintended consequences. The School Board wants to do better but groups like One Great Falls are having a giant hissy fit that socioeconomics might receive more prominence in a streamlined policy.

???You really think this is limited to OneGreatFalls?
And, perhaps if the school board had been following the policy, they would not be having these problems. When have they ever followed policy? They make rules and break them all the time. See the whole process with Stuart/Justice renaming. They had a policy and did not follow it when they did not get the preferred results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Why would they need to change the policy in the first place. Sure, the basic policy was written a long time ago and it has been adjusted somewhat, but the reason for boundaries has not changed: some schools are overcrowded, and a few are underenrolled.
Distance and travel time have significant impacts--for students and for budget. It also affects community support, etc.

So, are they saying that community schools are unimportant? That is is more important to get "equal diversity" in each school? If that is the case, get ready for buses everywhere.

See 9:13. When you say there are 14 relevant considerations, some in conflict with others, it’s not clear there is really any guiding framework or consistency.

For example, the current policy cites “contiguous school boundaries” as a consideration, but a recent boundary change involving Fairfax HS created an attendance island. “School feeder patterns” are another consideration, but the recent Thoreau/Jackson redistricting turned Thoreau into a three-way split feeder and ignored the opportunity to align feeder patterns in the Madison pyramid. And, while socioeconomics are identified as a consideration, boundary changes affecting Annandale and Lee HS have concentrated poverty in the schools.

So people look at what’s happened and conclude the current policy isn’t being followed and there have been a lot of unintended consequences. The School Board wants to do better but groups like One Great Falls are having a giant hissy fit that socioeconomics might receive more prominence in a streamlined policy.

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Why would they need to change the policy in the first place. Sure, the basic policy was written a long time ago and it has been adjusted somewhat, but the reason for boundaries has not changed: some schools are overcrowded, and a few are underenrolled.
Distance and travel time have significant impacts--for students and for budget. It also affects community support, etc.

So, are they saying that community schools are unimportant? That is is more important to get "equal diversity" in each school? If that is the case, get ready for buses everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to be honest.

If they weren't so committed to saying things like "boundary policy is 30 years old and hasn't been revised" when it's already on its seventh version (they are working on 8)

If brabrand could say "one fairfax" to parents when supposedly clearing things up, they would be better off.