So what are opinions, thoughts, comments, and concerns on the Boundary Lite proposal that will be introduced at this evenings' FCPS School Board meeting? For those not familiar, the item is on the action agenda for this evenings meeting as item 4.03, here: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=97AG9F42B010

The policy change would give the FCPS facilities office discretion to do boundary changes in the 5-15% range with "consultation" and then a School Board action to approve. No public notice/meeting requirement.

Good idea in concept, but poorly written and vague.

Some Ideas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what are opinions, thoughts, comments, and
> concerns on the Boundary Lite proposal that will
> be introduced at this evenings' FCPS School Board
> meeting? For those not familiar, the item is on
> the action agenda for this evenings meeting as
> item 4.03, here:
> http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/go
> to?open&id=97AG9F42B010
>
> The policy change would give the FCPS facilities
> office discretion to do boundary changes in the
> 5-15% range with "consultation" and then a School
> Board action to approve. No public notice/meeting
> requirement.
>
> Good idea in concept, but poorly written and
> vague.

There would be advance notice, since there is a requirement for consultation with affected communities and any boundary changes under the expedited process would be calendared for Board discussion and approval at a public meeting. However, the School Board would dispense with scheduling separate public hearings, where third-graders are paraded in front of the Board to read statements written by their mothers.

You sound like work for FCPS... citing the party line.

@SB - that's funny to think the school board would eliminate hearing from the public - I mean, why do the 3rd graders OR their parents feelings really matter anyways? LoLz

@OP - you said all you needed to say in the begining - Good idea in concept, but poorly written and vague.

Another Parent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You sound like work for FCPS... citing the party
> line.

No, just think it's misleading to say there would be no public notice.

That is what it says in the revised policy... no public notice and no public hearings. There would not be separate public hearings or notice for those hearings a very explicit statement.

It does say there would be "consultation" with "affected communities" but the notification requirements are not explicit in the policy and left to the implementing regulations by the Division Superintendent even though public meetings would likely be annouced and occur.

Some Ideas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is what it says in the revised policy... no
> public notice and no public hearings. There
> would not be separate public hearings or notice
> for those hearings a very explicit statement.
>
> It does say there would be "consultation" with
> "affected communities" but the notification
> requirements are not explicit in the policy and
> left to the implementing regulations by the
> Division Superintendent even though public
> meetings would likely be annouced and occur.

Wrong. The policy recites a state law that requires public notice for boundary changes affecting 15% or more of a school's population, and states that no public hearing shall be required. It does not affirmatively state there would be no public notice and, as a practical matter, the public would know such changes were proposed because FCPS would have communicated with parents in advance and the agenda for School Board meeting would identify a proposed adjustment as an action item.

If the hearings matter to you, contact your reps and ask them to oppose this change. Usually, it seems that people just bitch and moan that the hearings themselves aren't particularly instructive.

That is what I said. Geez, twisty wisty with this.

How is it that you know more ins and outs of this that our School Board members probably do? As Another Parent said you seem like you are staff of either FCPS or the School Board, or and FPAC member.

Some Ideas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is what I said. Geez, twisty wisty with
> this.
>
> How is it that you know more ins and outs of this
> that our School Board members probably do? As
> Another Parent said you seem like you are staff of
> either FCPS or the School Board, or and FPAC
> member.

None of the above. I simply read the proposal, with a knowledge of how FCPS has communicated and approved administrative boundary changes in the past.

If people think this approach is a bad idea, they should speak up - quickly. I don't really care if it's adopted or not. I simply find it amusing when some parents complain about the futility of hearings and then complain even more when there's a proposal to eliminate them in some situations. They usually don't like a particular decision that was made in the past, so they complain about the process ad nauseum because, surely, had someone just paid slightly more attention to them, everything would be much better.

15% of a high school is a lot of kids

The South Lakes debacle showed that the board could not be trusted when you could see them - God alone knows what they'll do when you can't see them.

We need some simple agreements - such as that no child should be redistricted into a lower performing school. The idea that they could decide administratively to redistrict 15% of the kids in a school with no proper mandated public process is scandalous.

Anything that reduces parental input into boundary changes or resident input into planning/zoning is a fundamentally bad idea.

It looks like they snuck this one by while doing the FHS redistricting.

In the future, the school system will have a new way to approve boundary changes. On Thursday, the board approved an expedited process that will give the superintendent the ability to move students to new schools with board approval as long as less than 15 percent of the population at each school will be affected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-county-approves-school-boundary-change/2013/05/10/8de99c58-b8f1-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html

already done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It looks like they snuck this one by while doing
> the FHS redistricting.
>
> In the future, the school system will have a new
> way to approve boundary changes. On Thursday, the
> board approved an expedited process that will give
> the superintendent the ability to move students to
> new schools with board approval as long as less
> than 15 percent of the population at each school
> will be affected.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fair
> fax-county-approves-school-boundary-change/2013/05
> /10/8de99c58-b8f1-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.htm
> l

It's been known for some time this was on the table and was likely to be adopted, so maybe you just weren't paying attention.