Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming

"Countless?" Come on. Do you know how many board meetings, committee meetings, working groups, and other sessions this year had nothing to do with the name change? See for yourself: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AAZFYB3D3E83. It took up a tiny fraction of the board's and staff's time.

Anonymous wrote:(with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board)

Of course it was! On one side, you had proponents making the seemingly indisputable point that public spaces shouldn't be named after traitors. On the other were a clump of opponents with a bizarre fixation on keeping that traitor's namesake.

Anonymous wrote:This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face

That's exactly what it is! You want to deny the school system hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because you didn't like that Stuart got renamed. Just be honest about it.

Lying repeatedly won't make your arguments any better.

School Board members and FCPS staff are on the record as saying the Stuart name change took a lot of their time and energy.

Conversely, they rubber-stamped capital spending proposals that deserved far more scrutiny.

As for Stuart, it's clear the School Board did the bidding of the NAACP and a very small number of "Changers" in cahoots with them and Evans.

I'd still probably vote against this bond package even if the mishandling of the Stuart renaming wasn't taking place simultaneously, but it seals the deal. They don't deserve more money.

The capital spending proposal was rubber stamped because there were no really vocal objectors. I assure you, if you had organized like the two sides of the Stuart debate, you would have been heard. If the SB doesn't get vocal push back, they assume we are ok with what they are doing.

Agree this is what happened however people come out whenever there is a clear threat to them and often for highly publicized issues and issues that involve specific minority groups. That's why general ed has such a hard time mobilizing. Everyone thinks someone else will handle. If the school board wants to spend less time with partisan supporters they should start focusing on some more mundane issues.

If FCPS and the School Board were responsible and really committed to community engagement, that's the dialogue they would encourage. Do we want more schools with over 2500 students? Are we prepared to have some students in trailers longer if we build a new school? How important is it to make full use of schools with extra capacity like Mount Vernon and Lee? What disparities, in terms of class sizes, are appropriate between schools in high ESOL/FARMS areas and those in wealthier areas? Should we keep spending money busing kids to AAP centers and TJHSST? Is IB worth the extra costs?

None of these questions really are discussed openly, either among School Board members or with the public. You end up with a system that caters only to special interests, and the middle gets the declining share of what's left, at least until they flee for Loudoun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming

"Countless?" Come on. Do you know how many board meetings, committee meetings, working groups, and other sessions this year had nothing to do with the name change? See for yourself: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AAZFYB3D3E83. It took up a tiny fraction of the board's and staff's time.

Anonymous wrote:(with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board)

Of course it was! On one side, you had proponents making the seemingly indisputable point that public spaces shouldn't be named after traitors. On the other were a clump of opponents with a bizarre fixation on keeping that traitor's namesake.

Anonymous wrote:This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face

That's exactly what it is! You want to deny the school system hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because you didn't like that Stuart got renamed. Just be honest about it.

Lying repeatedly won't make your arguments any better.

School Board members and FCPS staff are on the record as saying the Stuart name change took a lot of their time and energy.

Conversely, they rubber-stamped capital spending proposals that deserved far more scrutiny.

As for Stuart, it's clear the School Board did the bidding of the NAACP and a very small number of "Changers" in cahoots with them and Evans.

I'd still probably vote against this bond package even if the mishandling of the Stuart renaming wasn't taking place simultaneously, but it seals the deal. They don't deserve more money.

The capital spending proposal was rubber stamped because there were no really vocal objectors. I assure you, if you had organized like the two sides of the Stuart debate, you would have been heard. If the SB doesn't get vocal push back, they assume we are ok with what they are doing.

Agree this is what happened however people come out whenever there is a clear threat to them and often for highly publicized issues and issues that involve specific minority groups. That's why general ed has such a hard time mobilizing. Everyone thinks someone else will handle. If the school board wants to spend less time with partisan supporters they should start focusing on some more mundane issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming

"Countless?" Come on. Do you know how many board meetings, committee meetings, working groups, and other sessions this year had nothing to do with the name change? See for yourself: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AAZFYB3D3E83. It took up a tiny fraction of the board's and staff's time.

Anonymous wrote:(with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board)

Of course it was! On one side, you had proponents making the seemingly indisputable point that public spaces shouldn't be named after traitors. On the other were a clump of opponents with a bizarre fixation on keeping that traitor's namesake.

Anonymous wrote:This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face

That's exactly what it is! You want to deny the school system hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because you didn't like that Stuart got renamed. Just be honest about it.

Lying repeatedly won't make your arguments any better.

School Board members and FCPS staff are on the record as saying the Stuart name change took a lot of their time and energy.

Conversely, they rubber-stamped capital spending proposals that deserved far more scrutiny.

As for Stuart, it's clear the School Board did the bidding of the NAACP and a very small number of "Changers" in cahoots with them and Evans.

I'd still probably vote against this bond package even if the mishandling of the Stuart renaming wasn't taking place simultaneously, but it seals the deal. They don't deserve more money.

And this is the heart of what bothers you, isn't it?

It's almost like you think one group should speak for an entire county. Cute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming

"Countless?" Come on. Do you know how many board meetings, committee meetings, working groups, and other sessions this year had nothing to do with the name change? See for yourself: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AAZFYB3D3E83. It took up a tiny fraction of the board's and staff's time.

Anonymous wrote:(with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board)

Of course it was! On one side, you had proponents making the seemingly indisputable point that public spaces shouldn't be named after traitors. On the other were a clump of opponents with a bizarre fixation on keeping that traitor's namesake.

Anonymous wrote:This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face

That's exactly what it is! You want to deny the school system hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because you didn't like that Stuart got renamed. Just be honest about it.

Lying repeatedly won't make your arguments any better.

School Board members and FCPS staff are on the record as saying the Stuart name change took a lot of their time and energy.

Conversely, they rubber-stamped capital spending proposals that deserved far more scrutiny.

As for Stuart, it's clear the School Board did the bidding of the NAACP and a very small number of "Changers" in cahoots with them and Evans.

I'd still probably vote against this bond package even if the mishandling of the Stuart renaming wasn't taking place simultaneously, but it seals the deal. They don't deserve more money.

And this is the heart of what bothers you, isn't it?

With respect to Stuart, yes. Why did Sandy Evans ALWAYS have time to listen to George Alber and Bruce Cohen, but not to her own constituents?

With respect to the bond referendum, no. But you know that already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming

"Countless?" Come on. Do you know how many board meetings, committee meetings, working groups, and other sessions this year had nothing to do with the name change? See for yourself: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AAZFYB3D3E83. It took up a tiny fraction of the board's and staff's time.

Anonymous wrote:(with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board)

Of course it was! On one side, you had proponents making the seemingly indisputable point that public spaces shouldn't be named after traitors. On the other were a clump of opponents with a bizarre fixation on keeping that traitor's namesake.

Anonymous wrote:This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face

That's exactly what it is! You want to deny the school system hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because you didn't like that Stuart got renamed. Just be honest about it.

Lying repeatedly won't make your arguments any better.

School Board members and FCPS staff are on the record as saying the Stuart name change took a lot of their time and energy.

Conversely, they rubber-stamped capital spending proposals that deserved far more scrutiny.

As for Stuart, it's clear the School Board did the bidding of the NAACP and a very small number of "Changers" in cahoots with them and Evans.

I'd still probably vote against this bond package even if the mishandling of the Stuart renaming wasn't taking place simultaneously, but it seals the deal. They don't deserve more money.

And this is the heart of what bothers you, isn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming

"Countless?" Come on. Do you know how many board meetings, committee meetings, working groups, and other sessions this year had nothing to do with the name change? See for yourself: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AAZFYB3D3E83. It took up a tiny fraction of the board's and staff's time.

Anonymous wrote:(with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board)

Of course it was! On one side, you had proponents making the seemingly indisputable point that public spaces shouldn't be named after traitors. On the other were a clump of opponents with a bizarre fixation on keeping that traitor's namesake.

Anonymous wrote:This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face

That's exactly what it is! You want to deny the school system hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because you didn't like that Stuart got renamed. Just be honest about it.

Lying repeatedly won't make your arguments any better.

School Board members and FCPS staff are on the record as saying the Stuart name change took a lot of their time and energy.

Conversely, they rubber-stamped capital spending proposals that deserved far more scrutiny.

As for Stuart, it's clear the School Board did the bidding of the NAACP and a very small number of "Changers" in cahoots with them and Evans.

I'd still probably vote against this bond package even if the mishandling of the Stuart renaming wasn't taking place simultaneously, but it seals the deal. They don't deserve more money.

The capital spending proposal was rubber stamped because there were no really vocal objectors. I assure you, if you had organized like the two sides of the Stuart debate, you would have been heard. If the SB doesn't get vocal push back, they assume we are ok with what they are doing.

there was a request by 00:33 for "cites"to support my allegations in an earlier post (00:04). I have posted documents at a google drive here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8lf90n41MdFV2VneThsODVORFE?usp=sharing that provide data and support for the allegations with the exception of the assertion that Loudoun spends more on each "regular student" (defined as non- ESL or SpecEd) as FCPS. If/when I get permission I will post this spreadsheet/analysis as well.

Posted is the 2015 Internal Audit that found significant deficiencies in the contracting monitoring and evaluation and reporting functions at FCPS. A follow up report from the Office of Auditor General showing that as of May 2017 there were still 11 deficiencies to be addressed. The controversial Battelle for Kids contract is summarized to indicate the problems when a $363k contract is approved 10 weeks before the Supt. resigns to move to the contracting company to serve as President.

The lack of independence of the Auditor General is shown in the Policies 1105 and 1107 and the Regulation 1410 which significantly limit the AG's authority to act independently (e.g. requiring approval from the Audit Committee before acting, requiring consultation with the Lawyer - who is conflicted by working for the School Board as well as the administration and AG, etc.).

Data on the historical spending differentials as between Regular and SpecEd is included in two charts - one shows the different rates of growth over the past 15 years and the other shows the substantial differences in spending and identification as compared with regional peers. The Gibson study from 2003 is also included - this is the last comprehensive review to have been made.

The teacher compensation data is provided for a Masters Ln separately and for all Lanes and Steps for FY18, including regional peers. To estimate total compensation you must add the value of the ERFC supplemental pension which is now 6.2% and climbing to 7.1% (see the Asset Liability study included for this data). Note that the increase in the unfunded liability for ERFC was $60M (see CAFR) this past year. Note also that ERFC provides a 3% Cost of Living Allowance when inflation has averaged 1.6% over the past 10 years. So, new teachers are having benefits cut while retired teachers and administrators are receiving increases in their benefits over and above inflation! None of the County plans have this feature - they are all linked to actual inflation (CPI). Finally, a slide is attached that shows the significantly higher costs for investment management compared with the County plans and with another "best in class" public pension plan. Plan beneficiaries (i.e. teachers) should be very concerned with this as fees eat up returns that otherwise would accrue to the beneficiaries - lower costs means more funds in the Plan to pay benefits.

Hope this is responsive to your request for support for the assertions. This is the basis for my concern that the board focus on addressing and improving significant weaknesses, structural deficiencies and poor governance practices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming

"Countless?" Come on. Do you know how many board meetings, committee meetings, working groups, and other sessions this year had nothing to do with the name change? See for yourself: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AAZFYB3D3E83. It took up a tiny fraction of the board's and staff's time.

Anonymous wrote:(with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board)

Of course it was! On one side, you had proponents making the seemingly indisputable point that public spaces shouldn't be named after traitors. On the other were a clump of opponents with a bizarre fixation on keeping that traitor's namesake.

Anonymous wrote:This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face

That's exactly what it is! You want to deny the school system hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because you didn't like that Stuart got renamed. Just be honest about it.

Lying repeatedly won't make your arguments any better.

School Board members and FCPS staff are on the record as saying the Stuart name change took a lot of their time and energy.

Conversely, they rubber-stamped capital spending proposals that deserved far more scrutiny.

As for Stuart, it's clear the School Board did the bidding of the NAACP and a very small number of "Changers" in cahoots with them and Evans.

I'd still probably vote against this bond package even if the mishandling of the Stuart renaming wasn't taking place simultaneously, but it seals the deal. They don't deserve more money.

Anonymous wrote:Its been pointed out that there is already $630M of approved funds to be allocated from previous referendums. No need for another $315M at this time.

From the county's website: "Q: Why put forth additional referenda if there are still unsold bonds? A: Fairfax County bond packages are planned to fund specific projects. This means that all previous bond authorizations were planned for or are obligated to specific projects. These projects often take a number of years to complete. Bonds are sold only as the money is needed, resulting in substantial amounts of authorized, but unissued, bonds. Prudent financial management dictates that the proportionate amount of bonds be sold to coincide with the annual cash flow requirements for construction costs associated with the respective capital projects." https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/bond/bondfaqs.htm

Here are the projects that the proposed $315 million in authority would fund: "Plan and/or construct two new elementary schools, Relocate one modular building, Plan additions at three existing high schools to add capacity, Plan and/or construct renovations of ten elementary schools, three middle schools, and two high schools." https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/bond/2017-school-bond-pes.pdf

Anonymous wrote:And this won't "hurt the students" - but hopefully it will concentrate the minds of the school board to focus on "the basics".

Of course it would hurt students. Those projects don't happen without the bond authorization or a huge tax hike. Don't be a jerk.

Anonymous wrote:the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming

"Countless?" Come on. Do you know how many board meetings, committee meetings, working groups, and other sessions this year had nothing to do with the name change? See for yourself: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AAZFYB3D3E83. It took up a tiny fraction of the board's and staff's time.

Anonymous wrote:(with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board)

Of course it was! On one side, you had proponents making the seemingly indisputable point that public spaces shouldn't be named after traitors. On the other were a clump of opponents with a bizarre fixation on keeping that traitor's namesake.

Anonymous wrote:This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face

That's exactly what it is! You want to deny the school system hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because you didn't like that Stuart got renamed. Just be honest about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have that backwards......it was a vocal minority who raised a fit demanding to change the name. Far more wished it to stay the same.

Wishing it doesn't make it so. The vast majority of votes were cast for "something other than Confederate general." And again, if would-be opponents had simply recognized that of course we shouldn't name public schools after traitors against the United States and allowed the name change to go through without massive resistance, there would have been no controversy.

By the time of the last vote in September, there had already been several community surveys where students and residents expressed their support for keeping "Stuart." When FCPS decided to have yet another vote, many residents stayed away, recognizing that the School Board would disregard their views and go ahead with whatever they wanted. And they were right: the School Board rejected Stuart and the other top four names in favor of "Justice," which wasn't even on the ballot as a "concept" name. Evans needs to go.

Anonymous wrote:You have that backwards......it was a vocal minority who raised a fit demanding to change the name. Far more wished it to stay the same.

Wishing it doesn't make it so. The vast majority of votes were cast for "something other than Confederate general." And again, if would-be opponents had simply recognized that of course we shouldn't name public schools after traitors against the United States and allowed the name change to go through without massive resistance, there would have been no controversy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The connection I see is that the School Board treated the Stuart renaming as a major priority, whereas the discussions relating to the capital projects were shallow and largely consisted of SB members accepting without many questions proposals by the facilities staff that will make an increasing number of FCPS high schools huge facilities similar to the schools in Prince William, at the same time as Loudoun differentiates itself by building new, smaller schools that are closer in size to the size that FCPS not that long ago said was ideal. At the same time, despite this purported focus on equity, FCPS is letting schools like Lee and Mount Vernon go down the drain. I think their priorities consist of appeasing various interest groups rather than looking out for typical kids, and will vote against the bond to send a message that they need to stop pretending to be SJWs and start getting back to the basics.

Where's the evidence that capital projects discussions would have been any more rigorous if the renaming had been handled differently? The proposed size of new Fairfax schools relative to new schools elsewhere has nothing to do with renaming Stuart, nor does the board's focus on Lee and Mt. Vernon. The board can walk and chew gum, and while the renaming controversy drew a lot of press and public attention, it couldn't have been more than a tiny fraction of the board's total time.

Again, the board doesn't deserve blame because a vocal minority raised a fit in opposition to the proposal to rename Stuart.

Voting against the bond does send a message, just not quite the one you had in mind: that you care more about avenging your grievance than ensuring that our schools have the resources to best serve our children.

The burden isn't on me to prove that the School Board would have scrutinized their ill-conceived capital spending priorities more closely had the Stuart name change not been on the agenda, when it is in fact clear that the priorities are misplaced, yet received little scrutiny, all while the School Board devoted countless hours to debsting the Stuart renaming (with multiple Board members claiming it was the single most difficult issue they had ever encountered during their years on the Board) and then essentially opting for a "concept" name that hadn't even been voted upon by the community.

This is not cutting one's nose to spite one's face, but instead sending a clear message that we cannot trust the current Board as a steward of our tax dollars until they clean up their act. Vote No on this bond referendum.

Here is the thing. FCPS serves over 180,000 kids from every conceivable background in the world. And they all need different things. From kids who enter high school without speaking a word of English to the kids who enter TJ. The kids in wheelchairs to the kids who get D1 athletics scholarships. And in a system that diverse, with a range of needs that broad, you are always going to find something to hate if you look hard enough. Last year, it was high school start times. Before that, it was eliminating 1/2 day Monday’s. This year it’s Stuart. It is always about IB. It is often about my kid did not get into AAP. Very often on this board a snit about TJ.

I get it. You don’t like the Stuart name change. GTFU. The county is growing, and they are running out of seats. They are, from a big picture perspective, doing very well. And no group this diverse is every going to agree on the details. Which is why we act like adults and compromise.

Now, a school system that has real problems would be ACPS:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/679683.page

Anyone want their kids there right now? I didn’t think so.



And a school system that should provide us an object lesson in why we pass bonds build and renovate schools would be APS:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/649404.page

And the county IS using your money wisely. They have to renovate schools like Lee and Falls Church anyway. They are falling apart. Expanding them at the same time makes the most financial sense, both in terms of upfront costs, and in terms of not need a new administration, and all the other extra that go with a school. I agree that smaller high schools are better. However, new builds are not cheaper. Especially since decent parcels of land in good locations are expensive.

Grow up. Get over the Stuart name change. And give your kids a decent building to go to school in. SMH.

You have now demonstrated that you have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to use of FCPS resources. The School Board counts on idiots like you to hand them a blank check, and then tell everyone who questions their decisions to "STFU" or "grow up."

The rejection of the meals tax was the first step towards holding them more accountable for their decisions. Now it's time to follow up and vote against this bond referendum.

Anonymous wrote:"And the county IS using your money wisely."

This is simply untrue. The expenditure of $1M to change the name is NOT the big concern. The fact that (1) contracts are not evaluated, monitored or accurately reported according to the 2015 Internal Audit, (2) the Internal Auditor does not have real independence to review administration expenditures and programs, and members of the board actively oppose an independent auditor (3) the ERFC supplemental pension is an inappropriate and inequitable benefit - total compensation of FCPS teachers is well above peer systems - and administrative costs are twice as high as the County pension plans and as much as twelve times other public pension plans - this is gross waste (4) spending on "regular kids" (not those in ESL and SpecEd) has declined by more than 5% in real terms over the past five years while spending on "special kids" is more than twice as much on a per student basis. Analysts calculate that Loudoun spends more on "regular kids" than FCPS.

Some of the school board has not been focused on the mundane but important business of stewarding programs and expenditures; of monitoring and holding the administration accountable. The culture of FCPS must be focused on responsible governance. The Meals Tax was an indication of the lack of confidence that the citizens have in the school board. A community survey from earlier this year showed that only 35% of parents believed that the board/administration was fiscally responsible. This is the challenge, to build confidence in the ability of the board to oversee and manage the administration.

Its been pointed out that there is already $630M of approved funds to be allocated from previous referendums. No need for another $315M at this time. And this won't "hurt the students" - but hopefully it will concentrate the minds of the school board to focus on "the basics".

Why don’t you provide cites for at least some of these??

"And the county IS using your money wisely."

This is simply untrue. The expenditure of $1M to change the name is NOT the big concern. The fact that (1) contracts are not evaluated, monitored or accurately reported according to the 2015 Internal Audit, (2) the Internal Auditor does not have real independence to review administration expenditures and programs, and members of the board actively oppose an independent auditor (3) the ERFC supplemental pension is an inappropriate and inequitable benefit - total compensation of FCPS teachers is well above peer systems - and administrative costs are twice as high as the County pension plans and as much as twelve times other public pension plans - this is gross waste (4) spending on "regular kids" (not those in ESL and SpecEd) has declined by more than 5% in real terms over the past five years while spending on "special kids" is more than twice as much on a per student basis. Analysts calculate that Loudoun spends more on "regular kids" than FCPS.

Some of the school board has not been focused on the mundane but important business of stewarding programs and expenditures; of monitoring and holding the administration accountable. The culture of FCPS must be focused on responsible governance. The Meals Tax was an indication of the lack of confidence that the citizens have in the school board. A community survey from earlier this year showed that only 35% of parents believed that the board/administration was fiscally responsible. This is the challenge, to build confidence in the ability of the board to oversee and manage the administration.

Its been pointed out that there is already $630M of approved funds to be allocated from previous referendums. No need for another $315M at this time. And this won't "hurt the students" - but hopefully it will concentrate the minds of the school board to focus on "the basics".