Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When does the next 5 year review happen? Does the 5 year time period begin when this process started or from the 26-27 school year when the changes go in place?

Is each review going to take 2 years of meetings? Or just this “big review” that turned out to be “nibbling at the edges?”

Should start in 2030 but we’ll have a new School Board in 2027 and they could scrap the five-year reviews.

It’s not like this one has been a great success. Instead, it showcased the weaknesses in both the School Board and the current superintendent.

This review started in 2024.

The next one will start in 2029.

They will drop this and are unlikely to do it again. I remember when they said that 2000 was the optimum number for a high school as an excuse to do the South Lakes Boundary Study. Right after they had expanded Westfield to well over 2500.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When does the next 5 year review happen? Does the 5 year time period begin when this process started or from the 26-27 school year when the changes go in place?

Is each review going to take 2 years of meetings? Or just this “big review” that turned out to be “nibbling at the edges?”

Should start in 2030 but we’ll have a new School Board in 2027 and they could scrap the five-year reviews.

It’s not like this one has been a great success. Instead, it showcased the weaknesses in both the School Board and the current superintendent.

This review started in 2024.

The next one will start in 2029.

Not if we hold them accountable for this nonsense

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When does the next 5 year review happen? Does the 5 year time period begin when this process started or from the 26-27 school year when the changes go in place?

Is each review going to take 2 years of meetings? Or just this “big review” that turned out to be “nibbling at the edges?”

Should start in 2030 but we’ll have a new School Board in 2027 and they could scrap the five-year reviews.

It’s not like this one has been a great success. Instead, it showcased the weaknesses in both the School Board and the current superintendent.

This review started in 2024.

The next one will start in 2029.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When does the next 5 year review happen? Does the 5 year time period begin when this process started or from the 26-27 school year when the changes go in place?

Is each review going to take 2 years of meetings? Or just this “big review” that turned out to be “nibbling at the edges?”

Should start in 2030 but we’ll have a new School Board in 2027 and they could scrap the five-year reviews.

It’s not like this one has been a great success. Instead, it showcased the weaknesses in both the School Board and the current superintendent.

Here’s to hoping that the next board scraps the five year review so that they can address other pressing needs that were neglected while they wasted two years on an unnecessary comprehensive review.

I'd vote for anyone who would run on that alone

Updating the outdated renovation queue and addressing the few real problems like Coates and Parklawn would have been much better uses of their time and our money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When does the next 5 year review happen? Does the 5 year time period begin when this process started or from the 26-27 school year when the changes go in place?

Is each review going to take 2 years of meetings? Or just this “big review” that turned out to be “nibbling at the edges?”

Should start in 2030 but we’ll have a new School Board in 2027 and they could scrap the five-year reviews.

It’s not like this one has been a great success. Instead, it showcased the weaknesses in both the School Board and the current superintendent.

Here’s to hoping that the next board scraps the five year review so that they can address other pressing needs that were neglected while they wasted two years on an unnecessary comprehensive review.

I'd vote for anyone who would run on that alone

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When does the next 5 year review happen? Does the 5 year time period begin when this process started or from the 26-27 school year when the changes go in place?

Is each review going to take 2 years of meetings? Or just this “big review” that turned out to be “nibbling at the edges?”

Should start in 2030 but we’ll have a new School Board in 2027 and they could scrap the five-year reviews.

It’s not like this one has been a great success. Instead, it showcased the weaknesses in both the School Board and the current superintendent.

Here’s to hoping that the next board scraps the five year review so that they can address other pressing needs that were neglected while they wasted two years on an unnecessary comprehensive review.

Anonymous wrote:When does the next 5 year review happen? Does the 5 year time period begin when this process started or from the 26-27 school year when the changes go in place?

Is each review going to take 2 years of meetings? Or just this “big review” that turned out to be “nibbling at the edges?”

Should start in 2030 but we’ll have a new School Board in 2027 and they could scrap the five-year reviews.

It’s not like this one has been a great success. Instead, it showcased the weaknesses in both the School Board and the current superintendent.

When does the next 5 year review happen? Does the 5 year time period begin when this process started or from the 26-27 school year when the changes go in place?

Is each review going to take 2 years of meetings? Or just this “big review” that turned out to be “nibbling at the edges?”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The School board should make the best choices for the students--not just the wealthy students whose parents have the time and resources.

100% this

Repeal 8130 and get back to only necessary boundary changes.

The Policy 8130 revisions didn’t align with what families want. They should have known that very well from the prior outreach but Sizemore-Heizer and others stubbornly pushed through the revisions.

Then, when Thru selectively focused on some, but not all, of the factors in Policy 8130, people objected and they folded like a house of cards - in part because they belatedly realized how little support there was for the priorities in Policy 8130. Well, duh.

That left them with no anchor, which is why it now appears to many they simply acceded to the wishes of the loudest, wealthiest parents. But it’s their own damn fault. They started out with the wrong priorities and ended up with no principles, so of course it devolved into a free-for-all.

In a better world, people like Sizemore-Heizer, Frisch, and Reid would suffer the consequences of their incompetence, but this doesn’t happen in one-party Fairfax, as Sizemore-Heizer’s elevation to the BOS demonstrates.

Anonymous wrote:

The School board should make the best choices for the students--not just the wealthy students whose parents have the time and resources.

100% this

Sounds good in theory but the whole idea behind this boundary review was to outsource the work to a third-party consultant so the School Board members could avoid accountability.

The consultant hired by Reid then offered up a bunch of cowardly but still half-baked recommendations that created as many problems as they solved.

Since the School Board was continuing to say they were relying on others to come up with sensible proposals well into the fall, it was left to parents to call out the many mistakes in Thru’s proposals.

And, yes, the parents who did that tend to be wealthier and better organized than those who just sit back and accept whatever FCPS serves up.

Anonymous wrote:

The School board should make the best choices for the students--not just the wealthy students whose parents have the time and resources.

100% this

Repeal 8130 and get back to only necessary boundary changes.

The School board should make the best choices for the students--not just the wealthy students whose parents have the time and resources.

100% this

Since this entire process was supposed to focus on the transparency - can we see the final recommendations or written notes they gave last week?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pupil placing is a brain drain on certain schools. Often, it feels like the people most anxious to move other students into these Schools are the families who take advantage of pupil placing and don’t want that pupil placing practice to be scrutinized.

Pupil placement is the first thing that should be looked at. It will solve all the “problems” that the school board complains about.

Any time a solution is offered you have to look at what new problems it might cause.

That was one of the biggest flaws with what Thru proposed. They were lazy consultants just looking to collect a fee, so their approach was to identify a problem, come up with the most half-assed solution possible to solve it, and ignore the fact that they created as many problems as they solved.

We should address the reasons why kids are pupil placing, and not just limit them.

We are pretty confident that AP vs IB is one of the reasons given. And, yes, focus needs to be given to good, direct instruction in struggling schools.

I would give an additional stipend to good teachers who volunteer to teach in high FARMS schools.

Just following the logic the solution should be eliminating IB in the first instance before halting pupil placements. One approach is responsive; the other is punitive.,

Or offer AP at all schools. Maybe offer IB at schools that express an interest and have at least 10% of the student body complete the diploma. That should lead to 3 maybe 4 schools with IB and AP so students who want IB have a place to go.

There would only be 1, possibly 2 APs schools if 10% of students completing the diploma was the floor for IB.

Robnson would have IB.

Marshall would meet the treshhold some years but not others.

That is it.

And, doesn't Robinson offer quite a bit of AP?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pupil placing is a brain drain on certain schools. Often, it feels like the people most anxious to move other students into these Schools are the families who take advantage of pupil placing and don’t want that pupil placing practice to be scrutinized.

Pupil placement is the first thing that should be looked at. It will solve all the “problems” that the school board complains about.

Any time a solution is offered you have to look at what new problems it might cause.

That was one of the biggest flaws with what Thru proposed. They were lazy consultants just looking to collect a fee, so their approach was to identify a problem, come up with the most half-assed solution possible to solve it, and ignore the fact that they created as many problems as they solved.

We should address the reasons why kids are pupil placing, and not just limit them.

We are pretty confident that AP vs IB is one of the reasons given. And, yes, focus needs to be given to good, direct instruction in struggling schools.

I would give an additional stipend to good teachers who volunteer to teach in high FARMS schools.

Just following the logic the solution should be eliminating IB in the first instance before halting pupil placements. One approach is responsive; the other is punitive.,

Or offer AP at all schools. Maybe offer IB at schools that express an interest and have at least 10% of the student body complete the diploma. That should lead to 3 maybe 4 schools with IB and AP so students who want IB have a place to go.

There would only be 1, possibly 2 APs schools if 10% of students completing the diploma was the floor for IB.

Robnson would have IB.

Marshall would meet the treshhold some years but not others.

That is it.