stayingput you just have cabin fever. you wont change a thing, but your presence will know you views. when they try to change things for high grades they will think twice.

I think the SB has had so many boundary changes in the study as to confuse us all. I have no idea where my kids are going and the SB does not want to give out info as to when we will know.


We will be sent letters in August as to what schools our kids will attend and that will be that.

If you read it is out there. Attend the meetings with your PTA and get to know them and you will have the material. Parents need to be more involved. Not when it is too late after the fact. Then complane.

Have you signed up to speak at the public hearing next week? If not, then don't complain when this is over.

Since everyone on here seems to have something to say, and you should be saying these things to the school board at the public hearing next week, I thought I'd make it easy for everyone to sign up.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JK798WD

greatidea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes PTA presidents. Be open. Share the numbers
> either here or on your PTA website. We wantto
> know real results of surveys for resolution. FOIA
> would also list names.


You dumbass - PTAs aren't subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

If you aren't a member of your own PTA and don't vote, that's your problem.

Represent by participating or sit down and zip it.

The real results are that at least 11 of the 20 schools subject to the draconian heavy hand of FCPS have told the SB to go take a flying leap.

Figure a lowball estimate of 700 kids per school, that is 7,700 kids, 15,400 parents (at least) a likely equivalent or huge number of grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends and the like.

Now add sympathetic constituents, small business owners, real estate agents and more.

Hear the silence? F the silence! Listen up, SB & FCPS.
We are done with this crap.

Curious2 Wrote:
> Just curious. If, based on the census, they can
> carve another area out for a new County Supervisor
> seat, does Sangster fall in that area? Would Liz
> Bradsher be eligible to run for that new County
> Supervisor seat? Is that why she hasn't yet
> announced what her intentions are for what seat
> she is going to run for in November? Don't know
> enough about what is going on with the status of
> that but from the FOIA emails it looks like some
> of her decisions are selfishly motivated to her
> own self political interests. Just curious if
> there might possibly be any connections between
> that possible new seat and Liz and Sangster.

Listen - a County Supervisor seat costs a half a Mill. Not happening. The census data doesn't support it and at the time of a budget gap, the BOS is not going to carve another 1/2 Million Dollars out to set up a new seat.

If this is Liz's gameplan, she is even dumber than we thought.

?s Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Final SB vote Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Does anyone know when parents will be told by
> FCPS
> > what school their child will attend next year?
> >
> > The FCPS web site does not state the date.
> >
> > Does anyone from the PTA know? Plus when we we
> get
> > a bus schedule? Many parents work full time and
> > need to make arrangements.
> >
> > Thank you for the help.
>
> The school board vote for which option they are
> choosing is Feb. 24th so not until then.
> Currently there are 5 options - I imagine it is
> between option D or the staff recommendation
> option that is date 1/7/11. I doubt the bus
> schedule will come out until the week before
> school starts has it has in the past. I wonder if
> any schools will be changing start times in the
> morning due to further travel by some students -
> if so hopefully we will find out well in advance.


Just call Liz Bradshere and see if she will tell you - you know she knows already because it has already been decided.
Public Hearing my eye. You mean Public Waste of Time?
These people deserve an Academy Award for Most Use of the Public's Time to Contrive Transparency

comeonefolks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kids learn the same thing with 1/2 day versus
> full day. Look at the ciriculum. FCPS should not
> offer a babysitter service for 1/2 day in this
> time of budget concerns. The schools with
> populations that need it, have it funded through
> the federal goverment. Would a solution be to
> have 1/2 day just next year and not the next?
> Where will this money come from? What about teach
> and government worker raises? That will
> definitely take away from that.
>
> The comment about PTA running for school board was
> sarcasm. They have just as much of a shot of
> winning as does the current people.
>
> The comment about my VIEW. Except for 12-24 hours
> to fill out a survey, which minimal response. Who
> on the PTA asked for my view. You cannt get our
> views unless you ask and not do it last minute?
> PTA meetings are held during the day. Most people
> work. We saw that in this discussion when a parent
> said they need to work and cannot homeschool.
>
> I agree Clifton was a mess. A new school should
> have been built. I also think that people do not
> like change. The kids will still get the best
> education. If they are AAP they will be pulled to
> another school anyway.
>
> I cant keep up with all the requests. Dont close
> Clifton, dont move my children, not that school it
> is too far, concerned about another school, etc.
> To be honest, if we are looking out for all the
> students, why didnt you push for full day
> kindergarten sooner? GBW does not offer it. I
> did not see you sticking up for that the past 5
> years.


While you may not have meant to point it out, you got it EXACTLY.

How interesting that FCPS, the school board and in particular Liz Bradsher didn't seem too concerned about funding full day K for the lat 3 1/2 years.

But suddenly - as the election season gears up and the annual budget standoff with the Supervisors heats up - they genuinely advocate for FDK?

Seems their timely push for FDK is just in time to serve - - - themselves.

EXACTLY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> How interesting that FCPS, the school board and in
> particular Liz Bradsher didn't seem too concerned
> about funding full day K for the lat 3 1/2 years.
>
>
> But suddenly - as the election season gears up and
> the annual budget standoff with the Supervisors
> heats up - they genuinely advocate for FDK?
>
> Seems their timely push for FDK is just in time to
> serve - - - themselves.

So, so true. Especially the last sentence. Supporting FDK is actually serving their own interests.

rew Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously - will Clifton folks stop thinking this
> is all about them?
>
> There are major over-crowding issues across
> several schools and in many case boundaries are
> plain silly ( as someone earlier pointed it out -
> thank you much!)
>
> The SW boundary changes are attempting to correct
> some of these issues. And they are doing a pretty
> decent job at that.
>
> So the PTA's from all the schools need to really
> stop getting hyper and gossiping about how the
> FCPS board is out to screw the lives of kids in
> the community.


From another thread.
Attachments:

iowef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The wells at Clifton were never the problem,
> ineffective equipment was the problem."
>
> Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any fool
> will realize that a school which gets its water
> from a well in this day and age is probably
> nearing its end.
>
> And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call
> kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on your
> state of mind.


How about all of us in Clifton keep our real estate taxes and pay for our own dump of a school out of our dump of homes taxes and the rest of you just deal - cuz apparently they are coming through and plowing down all our houses anyway, cuz we all have wells - you ELITIST MORON.

Do you realize how much of a metro snob you sound like? We live life characterized by the best, newest, latest, electronic everything in Fairfax County. The rest of the UNIVERSE doesn't live like this. If a single community in Fairfax County doesn't subscribe to your vanilla, cookie-cutter subdivision, Starbucks on every corner lifestyle - so what? Clearly, our kids are not suffering educationally with another Excellence award.

If we were the actually elitists FCPS & the School Board are trying to smear us as, don't you think we would be demanding the brand new shiny crap all the other kids in this county are getting (largely thanks to pockets of real estate dollars like Clifton)?

Take your Smartboards and shove em - and thank Clifton, Great Falls and the like for them.

Let's stop with the ridiculous justification of what the School Board did - there is no justification for utter insanity and outright illegalites by a bunch of scofflaws.

Solution Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> iowef Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "The wells at Clifton were never the problem,
> > ineffective equipment was the problem."
> >
> > Wells??? Are we living in the middle ages? Just
> > goes to show how stubborn opinions get. Any
> fool
> > will realize that a school which gets its water
> > from a well in this day and age is probably
> > nearing its end.
> >
> > And to Thats Why () - who thinks its OK to call
> > kids 'shitty' - take a moment to reflect on
> your
> > state of mind.
>
>
> How about all of us in Clifton keep our real
> estate taxes and pay for our own dump of a school
> out of our dump of homes taxes and the rest of you
> just deal - cuz apparently they are coming through
> and plowing down all our houses anyway, cuz we all
> have wells - you ELITIST MORON.
>
> Do you realize how much of a metro snob you sound
> like? We live life characterized by the best,
> newest, latest, electronic everything in Fairfax
> County. The rest of the UNIVERSE doesn't live like
> this. If a single community in Fairfax County
> doesn't subscribe to your vanilla, cookie-cutter
> subdivision, Starbucks on every corner lifestyle
> - so what? Clearly, our kids are not suffering
> educationally with another Excellence award.
>
> If we were the actually elitists FCPS & the School
> Board are trying to smear us as, don't you think
> we would be demanding the brand new shiny crap all
> the other kids in this county are getting (largely
> thanks to pockets of real estate dollars like
> Clifton)?
>
> Take your Smartboards and shove em - and thank
> Clifton, Great Falls and the like for them.
>
> Let's stop with the ridiculous justification of
> what the School Board did - there is no
> justification for utter insanity and outright
> illegalites by a bunch of scofflaws.

You need some anger management, you sound like a lunatic... and I live in Clifton.

iowef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem,
> 75-80% are on well water."
>
> Clearly its points to why FCPS chose to close CES
>
>
> I am honestly sorry for CES parents - but from
> FCPS point of view, looks like it made no sense to
> invest additional $ into a resource that was
> serving so few families.


The rumors by FCPS continue =

Clifton ES attendance area is TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED HOMES.

The town boundary itself encompasses 200 - but is only a tiny portion of the overall attendance area.

MythBreaker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> iowef Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Of the 200 families that attend Clifton Elem,
> > 75-80% are on well water."
> >
> > Clearly its points to why FCPS chose to close
> CES
> >
> >
> > I am honestly sorry for CES parents - but from
> > FCPS point of view, looks like it made no sense
> to
> > invest additional $ into a resource that was
> > serving so few families.
>
>
> The rumors by FCPS continue =
>
> Clifton ES attendance area is TWO THOUSAND TWO
> HUNDRED HOMES.
>
> The town boundary itself encompasses 200 - but is
> only a tiny portion of the overall attendance
> area.


The original post is still correct, approx. 200 families ATTEND Clifton right now. There may be 2200 familes that COULD attend Clifton, but right now, there are approx. 200 families that are sending kids to Clifton THIS SCHOOL YEAR. And of those families with kids at Clifton right now, 75-80% are on well water.

Clifton Parent Wrote:
> The original post is still correct, approx. 200
> families ATTEND Clifton right now. There may be
> 2200 familes that COULD attend Clifton, but right
> now, there are approx. 200 families that are
> sending kids to Clifton THIS SCHOOL YEAR. And of
> those families with kids at Clifton right now,
> 75-80% are on well water.

Does every family send two kids? How do they have 370 students?
And it doesn't matter how many families attend - because families don't attend, kids do.

A lot more than 200 people in Clifton and the surrounding areas have wells - I don't live in Clifton and I have a well.

It appears that in June of last year, there was no reason to not leave Clifton ES "as is" and use the $$ else where in the CIP. It also appears that they absolutely knew that NOT building a new school would require additions and a large movement of students. Anyone else feel like they're being played here??
How many schools come out of the boundary study if CES is left open in "as is" condition so more pressing needs in county schools can be addressed? Hmmm???
The proof is right here that it can be done.



From: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member) [ETBradsher@fcps.edu]
To: Wilson, Tessie (School Board Member)
CC:
BCC:
Sent: 6/7/2010 9:41:54 PM
Subject: RE: July 8th meeting

Attachments:


You are correct—Janie just called she doesn’t want to put a dime into Clifton, neither does Jim. Both question can we just leave it as is and use the funds for the CIP and other needs? The answer is yes but we still must respond to the capacity concerns in the Southwest and if we don’t build a school we build additions and there will need to be a rather large movement of students, i.e. boundary changes. More so than if we build a new school per Dean. L



Elizabeth T. Bradsher

Fairfax County School Board

Springfield District

Phone: (571) 296-1875

Debora L. Cain, Executive Administrative Assistant

Phone: (571) 423-1070



________________________________

From: Wilson, Tessie (School Board Member)
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 8:39 PM
To: Bradsher, Elizabeth (School Board Member)
Subject: RE: July 8th meeting



Try not to get too engaged with a back and forth with one person. It will drive you crazy – and chances are – you’re not going to change her mind!



Tessie Wilson

Vice Chairman

School Board Member

Braddock District

Sparkling Tap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clifton Parent Wrote:
> > The original post is still correct, approx. 200
> > families ATTEND Clifton right now. There may
> be
> > 2200 familes that COULD attend Clifton, but
> right
> > now, there are approx. 200 families that are
> > sending kids to Clifton THIS SCHOOL YEAR. And
> of
> > those families with kids at Clifton right now,
> > 75-80% are on well water.
>
> Does every family send two kids? How do they have
> 370 students?
> And it doesn't matter how many families attend -
> because families don't attend, kids do.
>
> A lot more than 200 people in Clifton and the
> surrounding areas have wells - I don't live in
> Clifton and I have a well.


I know numerous families in Clifton that have 4-5 kids. In fact, the reason they moved to Clifton was for the bigger yards for their larger than average families.

Would folks worried/ranting about CES closing please start a new thread.

This thread is about SW Boundary study and NOT CES.

And, no SW boundary study is not just cause CES was closed - you folks do realize that the world does not start and end with CES closure, right?

You have the biggest dog in this fight. This all started with CES and will end with CES. Plus you have the balls and money to sue the county.

JustGo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would folks worried/ranting about CES closing
> please start a new thread.
>
> This thread is about SW Boundary study and NOT
> CES.
>
> And, no SW boundary study is not just cause CES
> was closed - you folks do realize that the world
> does not start and end with CES closure, right?


SHUT UP!

Looks like someone can't handle the truth..

You folks mad about CES closure should have faced down this issue last year. Too Late now - dont you get it?

20+ other schools are impacted by this and if its fairness that you care about then respect other parents whose kids are going to be impacted by these proposals.

Changes are coming, whether you like it or not, so look forward and dont be silly trying to re litigate this decision.

JustGo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like someone can't handle the truth..
>
> You folks mad about CES closure should have faced
> down this issue last year. Too Late now - dont you
> get it?

Um, a good number of those living in the Clifton Elementary attendance area as well as a few from surrounding schools DID stand up. They have done so since this whole process started in July of 2009. And they found that the School Board listens to those who don't speak and hides important information until the hour of the vote. Or as Stu Gibson said the night of the Clifton closure vote, they "listen to the silence."

All I can say is that if you believe your voice will be heard and your concerns addressed by this School Board and Superintendant, you are nuts. You are correct in stating they are going to do whatever they want and you have no recourse.

Please remember this all started because 4 schools had projected overcrowding issues.

Clifton Elementary is not going away and it should be part of this boundary study. The Fairfax History Commission just voted UNANIMOUSLY to add it to the Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites. Saw a quote that said "For the School Board to not operate it as a school going forward would be fiscally irresponsible to the County's taxpayers."

Scheduled to speak in front of the board. Have spent hours researching the plans and see some fatal flaws - when compaing the presentation the staff did for the board and looking at their data. Feeling confident that I can present some hard facts and not just emotional stuff. I may not make a change but I will make sure my voice is heard - feeling impowered.

stayinput Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scheduled to speak in front of the board. Have
> spent hours researching the plans and see some
> fatal flaws - when compaing the presentation the
> staff did for the board and looking at their data.
> Feeling confident that I can present some hard
> facts and not just emotional stuff. I may not make
> a change but I will make sure my voice is heard -
> feeling impowered.

Good for you!

The overall cost of the boundary shifts are going to cost approximately $15 million and effort that will impact 23 schools and thousands of students and their families. The goal of the boundary changes is to achieve a building utilization between 95% -105%. Of the 23 schools in the study, 12 of the schools are already compliant and only 5 more schools will be achieve this utilization goal as part of the study in 2011-2012. $15 million seems like a hefty pricing, especially during a recession, to make 5 more schools achieve such a building utilization goal.

Pissed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The overall cost of the boundary shifts are going
> to cost approximately $15 million and effort that
> will impact 23 schools and thousands of students
> and their families. The goal of the boundary
> changes is to achieve a building utilization
> between 95% -105%. Of the 23 schools in the
> study, 12 of the schools are already compliant and
> only 5 more schools will be achieve this
> utilization goal as part of the study in
> 2011-2012. $15 million seems like a hefty
> pricing, especially during a recession, to make 5
> more schools achieve such a building utilization
> goal.

It's more than $15 milllion. The trailers and furniture needed for them aren't going to be free.

Yes, the furniture and all of the equipment will cost. They do not normally use furniture from school to school. When a school is closed down, or fully renovated, all of the desks, chairs, blackboards, and yes smartboards and computers go in the dumpster.

It's a complete waste.

Is Yeehaw the same PTA exec board that hired the people before. The members of your PTA did not approve you to do this. Please represent yourself not the PTA.

Notagainplease Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is Yeehaw the same PTA exec board that hired the
> people before. The members of your PTA did not
> approve you to do this. Please represent yourself
> not the PTA.


What are you talking about? Who did the PTA hire, and for what? For that matter, what PTA are you referring to?

You lost us.

GB

I think you are actually speaking of me - yeehaw was commenting on the fact that I have an issue with this boundary study and I am speaking.

I have no clue what you mean with hiring? I am a member of the PTA and I did vote on the resolution as every member of Greenbriar PTA was invited to do and those that did vote to include our PTA as part of that larger PTA resolution.

I am there to speak as an individual but I do plan to include that I am a PTA member and state the facts that I have been provided by our PTA as a very small part of my 3 minutesm and this has been addressed and apporoved by the Greenbriar West PTA board. So please don't jump to any conclusions as it appears from your post.

You have no right to say how I address this but are more than welcome to sign up and take your own time and speak before the board as well. You have no clue who I am or what I intend to say yet you have the audacity to make apparently some sort of assumption. I have been very clear that I am unhappy about the possible move, but at the same time I have been open minded of different opinions and aware that while my voice may be heard it does not mean I will get what I want which is to stay at Greenbriar West. I have also said throughout my posts that I encourage those with differing views to also share that with the board and if in fact we get moved I will be 100% behind making it a positive transistion.

Yeehaw - thank you for the positve comment by the way. I have spent more hours on planning a concise and factual 3 minutes than I did on many of my papers in school.

Received this earlier today.




Public Hearing, Monday, February 7th, at 6pm
on the Southwestern boundary study affecting 17,500 students and FCPS’ intentions on Clifton Elementary
Jackson Middle School, 3020 Gallows Rd, Falls Church

We have two immediate CALL TO ACTION items for all Fairfax County residents regarding the FCPS decision to affect over 17,500 students, their families, teachers, communities and taxpayers in the unnecessary SW Boundary Study, which has NOT been substantiated by facts and data:

1. MONDAY, February 7th: Attend the School Board meeting this Monday, February 8th, promptly at 6:00pm at Luther Jackson Middle School located at 3020 Gallows Road in Falls Church. The School Board’s decision to completely ignore the public outcry, the lack of material information on the costs or need for the sweeping nature of the SW Boundary Study, and failure to be transparent about the process are NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Students, families, teachers, communities and all Fairfax County taxpayers are being needlessly impacted by the SW Boundary Study.

Bring small signs if you want and PLEASE WEAR A WHITE SHIRT. We'll have a sign-up sheet to ensure that all attendees are accounted for and the final count will be given to FCPS officials. YOUR PRESENCE AT THIS MEETING IS CRITICAL!

2. TODAY: Email your School Board member and the At-Large members and specifically:

Ask them what the transportation impact will be for every school in the study;
Ask them what the transportation costs will be for the proposed Staff recommendation;
Ask them what the cost and program impacts will be to Special Education students, AAP students, ESL students, special programs and SACC;
Ask them which schools will meet ALL Educational Specifications in SY2011-12 if the boundary changes as proposed are implemented next school year; and
Ask them questions specific to your student, your community, your tax bill.
Detailed questions could include:

How many schools would be removed from this boundary study if Clifton Elementary were to stay open?
Now that we know the water is safe and the enrollment has not declined as predicted, will the School Board reconsider its vote from July 8th, 2010 to close CES?
What are the REAL costs of the study’s boundary changes? impact and cost of transportation? Special education needs?
What are the SACC implications?
What are the AAP implications? How do you know, as students are not identified until the end of 2nd grade for Level IV AAP? What is the impact to school-based Level III AAP?
When are brick and mortar additions scheduled to start? To be finished?What happens until then?!
How many trailers are needed for these boundary changes? Where? At what cost?
FCPS anticipates over 2,100 MORE students in the county just next year – SY2011-12 – how are these new estimates accounted for when maxing out capacity in a vast portion of the county?

Here is a list of all the School Board Members' Email addresses:

Ms. Kathy Smith, Chairman, Sully District - Email: kathy.l.smith@fcps.edu
Mr. Brad Center, Vice Chairman, Lee District - Email: brad.center@fcps.edu
Mr. Daniel Storck, Mount Vernon District - Email: daniel.storck@fcps.edu
Ms. Liz Bradsher, Springfield District - Email: elizabeth.bradsher@fcps.edu
Mr. Stuart Gibson, Hunter Mill District - Email: stuart.gibson@fcps.edu
Ms. Sandy Evans, Mason District - Email: sandy.evans@fcps.edu
Ms. Patty Reed, Providence District - Email: patricia.reed@fcps.edu
Ms. Jane Strauss, Dranesville District - Email: jane.strauss@fcps.edu
Ms. Tessie Wilson, Braddock District - Email: tessie.wilson@fcps.edu
Mr. Ilryong Moon, Member at Large - Email: ilryong.moon@fcps.edu
Mr. James Raney, Member at Large - Email: james.raney@fcps.edu
Ms. Tina Hone, Member at Large - Email: martina.hone@fcps.edu

DO NOT LEAVE ACTION TO OTHERS.YOUR PRESENCE AT MONDAY'S MEETING IS CRITICAL. SIGN UP TO SPEAK AND EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD. If you missed on-line sign up, PLEASE SHOW UP AND REGISTER TO SPEAK IN PERSON MONDAY NIGHT!

This is the only opportunity you will have to speak directly to the School Board regarding this issue.

Please tell the School Board that they must do better!

Forward this message to a friend

From the Herrity Report:


Fairfax County Public Schools is currently conducting a study of Elementary School boundaries to address current overcrowding in a handful of schools for the 2011-12 school year and the loss of 400 seats due to the closing of Clifton ES. The current recommendation of school staff directly impacts almost 1,500 kids in 21 schools - and their new classmates another 17,000+ kids who will now be in schools with inadequate facilities - overcrowded classrooms, gyms, music rooms, cafeterias and trailers. These boundary changes are projected to take place this year (September 2011) before any new classroom and facilities are built. Lost in the debate is that fact that much of the school overcrowding is not projected to occur until later. So why disrupt the education of so many southwestern students and families now?

There are a whole slew of unanswered questions related to this boundary study. In my opinion the biggest is - Why the rush? Why rush kids and teachers into school trailers and inadequate facilities that don't meet the county's basic educational specifications?

The public hearings for the boundary study are today, February 7, 2011 at Luther Jackson Middle School beginning at 6:00PM and concluding when all speakers have been heard. If you live in the southwestern section of the County please consider attending the meeting TONIGHT. Let the school board know that you want answers. Ask why they are rushing a process that doesn't need to be rushed and that will force our kids and teachers into facilities that are not yet ready. Ask why they are not giving serious consideration to the option that would let students and teachers stay in proven facilities for the time being while new facilities are being constructed.

Over half of the PTA's from the impacted schools have already passed a "No Faith" resolution expressing a lack of confidence in the process, projections, building capacity data, and the rushed timetable pushed by school staff. The PTAs and their members recognize this is the largest boundary study in FCPS history. The PTAs' resolution asks the school board to halt the boundary study until school staff answers the following basic questions:

· Why move students into schools without existing capacity before permanent capacity, in the form of newly proposed building additions, is complete? Trailers and modulars are not permanent solutions.

· What are the basic transportation plans including cost and ride times?

· What is the traffic impact on the local communities? Is there sufficient parking, kiss and ride, and bus drop off space?

· Has staff considered construction of a new elementary school at or near the epicenter of overcrowding - Would this be a cheaper option and less disruptive option than spending, at minimum, $15.1M of your taxpayer dollars on expansions? Some 'big schools' will, as a result of the proposed expansions, become even bigger schools - is this the best option for our kids and teachers?

· What is the plan for SACC placement when children with a SACC assignment at their current school are moved to another school?

· How will FCPS address concerns of impacted families who may be moved from a school with current full day kindergarten to a new school that has half-day kindergarten?

· Is this an opportunity to build space for full day kindergarten?

I encourage you to go to the FCPS school boundary site to see if you can find the answers to these questions - http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/index.htm

It is clear to me that the Southwestern Boundary Study and the decision to close Clifton should have been considered together, and if they had been considered together, the school board wouldn't have closed Clifton ES. School staff says the two issues are not linked. But the absurdity of closing Clifton ES - our number two best performing elementary school with a capacity of 400 that did not need to be renovated - only to move students to other sites with inadequate facilities - raises serious questions that need to be answered. The school board's rush to close Clifton by June 2011 and accomplish demographic shuffling in the boundary study before a new school board is elected in November is a major disservice to potentially thousands of the kids, families and teachers in southwestern Fairfax County.

The fact is there is no need to rush this process. The School Board should wait until it addresses the issues identified by the concerned PTA's and the families they represent. And new facilities should be created before they move our kids into a worse situation with inadequate facilities. Unfortunately, that was not one that was presented to parents by school staff for consideration.



Southwestern Boundary Study Schools Impacted:

Bonnie Brae, Colin Powell, Greenbriar East, Providence, Brookfield, Cub Run, Greenbriar West, Bull Run, Deer Park, Union Mill, Centre Ridge, Eagle View, London Towne, Virginia Run, Centreville, Fairfax Villa, Oak View, Willow Springs, Clifton, Fairview, Poplar Tree

Clifton ES Closure:

Clifton Elementary was approved for closure by the School Board in July. Board members cited the following reasons for closing the school:

high renovation costs (disputed claim but undisputed was the communities request not to renovate the #2 best performing elementary school in Fairfax County and leave it open),
decreases in enrollment projects (enrollment actually increased) and
water safety concerns (water quality proved to be fine - FCPS has stopped using bottled water at the school)

Note the two different days in the past two posts. I believe it is tonight. Is this going to be on cable so we can watch.

Read the Post article today on the amount of FOIA requests being put forth on the Boundary study and on the Clifton closure, plus just happened to catch the FCPS board meeting tonight...especially heard the testimony by the Schultz couple..who are also mentioned in the Post article...some thoughts.

Mr and Mrs Schultz I am ticked off over your incessant demands for FOIA info and what it is costing me as a taxpayer. And based on your comments tonight, it appears that you have tried Catholic schools, private schools, and now public schools...hell, you will never be satisfied, regardless of what FCPS does! So shut the hell up.

And as for the rest of you nasty folks, especially those from Clifton...if you are so ticked off with a School Board member, then vote him/her out. Better yet, so many of you appear to be real "experts" why don't YOU run for office? It is very apparent that you think you can do a much better job.

Sheesh..enough already!

Here's a better question? Why was the meeting held all the way at Luther Jackson, why not a school in the affected area? Was it so no one would attend or at least fewer people who are against the school board would attend as that starting time with traffic and everything would be difficult for many in the affected areas

LIz, you go girl!

RogNoVa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read the Post article today on the amount of FOIA
> requests being put forth on the Boundary study and
> on the Clifton closure, plus just happened to
> catch the FCPS board meeting tonight...especially
> heard the testimony by the Schultz couple..who are
> also mentioned in the Post article...some
> thoughts.
>
> Mr and Mrs Schultz I am ticked off over your
> incessant demands for FOIA info and what it is
> costing me as a taxpayer. And based on your
> comments tonight, it appears that you have tried
> Catholic schools, private schools, and now public
> schools...hell, you will never be satisfied,
> regardless of what FCPS does! So shut the hell
> up.
>
> And as for the rest of you nasty folks, especially
> those from Clifton...if you are so ticked off with
> a School Board member, then vote him/her out.
> Better yet, so many of you appear to be real
> "experts" why don't YOU run for office? It is very
> apparent that you think you can do a much better
> job.
>
> Sheesh..enough already!


This thread is about the Southwestern Boundary Study. If you can't stay on topic, please get off the thread.

yo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a better question? Why was the meeting held
> all the way at Luther Jackson, why not a school in
> the affected area? Was it so no one would attend
> or at least fewer people who are against the
> school board would attend as that starting time
> with traffic and everything would be difficult for
> many in the affected areas


I agree they should have made an exception and moved the meeting because of the issue and area, but I think they have the cameras and all the other things like there special seating and the timer system all set there for all public meetings so they can be aired on 21 - that said I think there are times when exceptions can be made, and they could have just gone without the fluff and held it in a highschool auditorium with a single camera.

So it the new option the final option. why no comments about what happened except you dont like some couple. what is now on the table and when will it be final

Okay up date. I left the speaker forum feeling that there may be some wiggle room on this whole thing. I think the will be revising the Final Plan as they have said in the past it is not a yes or no thing. I think people need to write to the board with their opinions (they have asked for that and if you are going to complain then be a part of the process).

That said - I think it would take a miracle for them to give in on Clifton (for the record I think many valid points were made last night to keep it, but I think there were a few very rude highly emotionally charged individuals that only harmed Clifton's pursuit - I understand their anger but being rude only makes you look bad). That said I really think the Clifton folks made a good case - I hope you all are listened too but I think it would be hard for the Board to go back even if it is the right thing.

I think the Fairview 50 has really solidified and will get to stay - the Board was listening when people from your school spoke.

I think London Towne brought up some valid points but the numbers were not there.

I think not enough people from other schools came and said hey we asked for no Domino Effect moves this does not make sense. I think there will be some tweeks but not a lot of big changes.

When will get this new made up final plan? Does anyone know what option it may be? We have had all these meetings ect. I guess they were just a waste of our time.

I just want to know what school my child is going to next year, as I am sure everyone else does to. Enough with the bullshit and give us the straight facts.

stayinput Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay up date. I left the speaker forum feeling
> that there may be some wiggle room on this whole
> thing. I think the will be revising the Final Plan
> as they have said in the past it is not a yes or
> no thing. I think people need to write to the
> board with their opinions (they have asked for
> that and if you are going to complain then be a
> part of the process).
>
> That said - I think it would take a miracle for
> them to give in on Clifton (for the record I think
> many valid points were made last night to keep it,
> but I think there were a few very rude highly
> emotionally charged individuals that only harmed
> Clifton's pursuit - I understand their anger but
> being rude only makes you look bad). That said I
> really think the Clifton folks made a good case -
> I hope you all are listened too but I think it
> would be hard for the Board to go back even if it
> is the right thing.
>
> I think the Fairview 50 has really solidified and
> will get to stay - the Board was listening when
> people from your school spoke.
>
> I think London Towne brought up some valid points
> but the numbers were not there.
>
> I think not enough people from other schools came
> and said hey we asked for no Domino Effect moves
> this does not make sense. I think there will be
> some tweeks but not a lot of big changes.


Good points, stayinput. In defense of the Clifton angry, go back and look at the public hearing video during the Clifton School Closing hearing (June 28, I think) where almost 100 people talked in front of the school board. There were no angry or insulting remarks then, just a lot of facts, alternate solutions, saying Clifton parents would sacrifice renovations for keeping the school open, and opinions. BUT the school board chose to ignore them all. Then come to find out about all of the backdoor deals going on. This makes people lose faith in their own elected officials, and yes, a lot angry!

Interesting fact: The only dissenting voice from that June 28 hearing in favor of CLOSING Clifton Elem was from the Virginia Run PTA President, Cassie Eatmon. Ironically, Beth Tweddle, who lives in and writes the newsletter and pretty much represents the Va Run neighborhood, spoke Monday night at the hearing in favor of scrapping the boundary study (because Va Run does not want more kids at their school).

This back and forth with the SB has been going on for over a year. We have been told so many lies by the SB. I think we now have every right to be mad. I only wish we had tougher from the get go.

I am glad now that so many other parents from the other area schools are upset too. This effects so many children.

The SB should not be allowed to treat us like this and keep us in the dark.

My comments were not to disparage or disrespect Ms. Tweddle, she does a lot of great things for Va Run. My point is that they would not be in this fight if it weren't for the actions of Eatmon and Bradsher.

I think Tweddle should run for school board!

+ 1 Tweedle for School Board!

Please sign the SW Boundary Study petition today!

A new petition regarding the SW Boundary Study has been started online by a concerned parent from Poplar Tree Elementary in Chantilly.

This petition will be presented to the School Board prior to their vote on the boundary changes on Feb. 24th. Please take a moment to follow the link below and sign the petition. It is free to sign. There is a "requested donation" page that pops up after you add your signature, but you do not need to make a donation in order for your signature to count.

It only takes a moment.

54% of tax revenue for Fairfax County goes directly to FCPS. The proposed boundary changes will cost taxpayers from the entire county over $15 MILLION, and fails to effectively solve the overcrowding. Please sign the petition, and please forward this to everyone you know in Fairfax County. Even if they do not have children in FCPS or live in the SW Region of Fairfax County, every resident of Fairfax County is going to pay for this failure.

"Southwestern Boundary Study Petition"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/southwesternboundarystudy

+1

"Southwestern Boundary Study Petition"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/southwesternboundarystudy

Clifton parents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This back and forth with the SB has been going on
> for over a year. We have been told so many lies
> by the SB. I think we now have every right to be
> mad. I only wish we had tougher from the get go.
>
> I am glad now that so many other parents from the
> other area schools are upset too. This effects so
> many children.
>
> The SB should not be allowed to treat us like this
> and keep us in the dark.


I think there is a big difference between mad/angry and vocalizing it (which I think many Clifton parents did brilliantly at this last speaker forum and I am not from Clifton) to being down right rude. I just think that the one or two who just really were rude - did nothing but make themself look bad and unfortunately bolster this horrible "Clifton parent" sterotype that seems to be out there and further shut the ears of the board. You could see the body language change and watch them shut down - you were not there to vent but to present points. Yes I know history is that the Board has not listened but then why give ammunition to ignore you further. Until Clifton is closed it is still open and shooting yourself in the foot by being rude and nasty only helps the board feel good about it. How they have gone about this is horrible, and I doubt they will back down about Clifton, but when faced with an adversary you have more strength staying collected and cooly polite then being rude and nasty (don't get me wrong I get it I have had my moments in life, but I also had many remind me the best way to deal with this was stick with the numbers and hard facts). I will say again though that I was truly impressed with the vast majority of Clifton parents and wish more parents from other schools were there as well - a petition and emails is great but physical numbers, filling a room with a wide number of constituents from various areas is what opens blinded eyes (sometimes - one hopes).

stayinput(I hope) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clifton parents Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This back and forth with the SB has been going
> on
> > for over a year. We have been told so many
> lies
> > by the SB. I think we now have every right to
> be
> > mad. I only wish we had tougher from the get go.
>
> >
> > I am glad now that so many other parents from
> the
> > other area schools are upset too. This effects
> so
> > many children.
> >
> > The SB should not be allowed to treat us like
> this
> > and keep us in the dark.
>
>
> I think there is a big difference between
> mad/angry and vocalizing it (which I think many
> Clifton parents did brilliantly at this last
> speaker forum and I am not from Clifton) to being
> down right rude. I just think that the one or two
> who just really were rude - did nothing but make
> themself look bad and unfortunately bolster this
> horrible "Clifton parent" sterotype that seems to
> be out there and further shut the ears of the
> board. You could see the body language change and
> watch them shut down - you were not there to vent
> but to present points. Yes I know history is that
> the Board has not listened but then why give
> ammunition to ignore you further. Until Clifton is
> closed it is still open and shooting yourself in
> the foot by being rude and nasty only helps the
> board feel good about it. How they have gone about
> this is horrible, and I doubt they will back down
> about Clifton, but when faced with an adversary
> you have more strength staying collected and cooly
> polite then being rude and nasty (don't get me
> wrong I get it I have had my moments in life, but
> I also had many remind me the best way to deal
> with this was stick with the numbers and hard
> facts). I will say again though that I was truly
> impressed with the vast majority of Clifton
> parents and wish more parents from other schools
> were there as well - a petition and emails is
> great but physical numbers, filling a room with a
> wide number of constituents from various areas is
> what opens blinded eyes (sometimes - one hopes).


The ones that were "rude" were not from Clifton. They were Fairfax County taxpayers that are angry about how they see the SB is operating. Watch the video. They weren't from Clifton. It's interesting though how everyone wants to assume they are from Clifton.... Seems to be lots of pre-conceived notions about Clifton.

+1

I am so tired of being called an elite rude snob. This not true for me and many others who live in Clifton. If you do not live here you would not and can not understand how we love our community. If you like you should get involved in your own community and make it what you want.

Work session on Monday on the boundary study, 12:30 at Gatehouse. Be there.

http://fairfaxstation.patch.com/articles/parents-speak-out-on-proposed-school-boundary-changes-2?ncid=M255

Parents Speak Out on Proposed School Boundary Changes

Public hearing held this week in Falls Church on changes that will affect a number of schools in the area.
By Mary C. Stachyra | Email the author | February 10, 2011
Add a comment (1 comment )
Email | Start Following | Print | Facebook Share on Facebook |
View full size
new Play
Credit Mary C. Stachyra
Videos (1)
Credit Mary C. Stachyra http://o5.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/resize/273x203/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/c61732f00f4fcf46fadd081d256abe03
Add your photos & videos
Section Sponsored By
patch

Parents and community members gathered before the Fairfax County School Board this week to express their opinions and concerns over proposed changes to school boundaries in the southwestern part of the county.

Much of the testimony centered on the school board's decision last year to close Clifton Elementary School. However, representatives from 10 other local PTAs also testified that their members had voted in favor of a resolution expressing "no confidence" in the study, showing widespread unease over the largest boundary study in FCPS history.

The PTAs that have signed the resolution are from Oak View, Clifton, Willow Springs, Union Mill, Deer Park, Poplar Tree, Fairview, Colin Powell, Providence, Greenbriar West and London Towne elementary schools.

"Early on, several of the PTAs expressly did not want to get involved in what has become a very contentious issue. As the study evolved, these PTAs from all areas of the study region have banded together willingly over what we see as an incomplete solution to the overcrowding issue in this area," said Amy Riddick, president of the PTA at Fairview Elementary, adding that the 11 PTAs represent 8,500 students in the area.

Riddick said that the final FCPS staff recommendations, which were presented to the board last month, raised more questions then the other four options presented to the public and that there were too many "domino effects" caused by moving children from one school to another. She questioned why the school board would schedule the vote before new five-year projection data is released next month.

"We do understand that some schools in the area have an overcrowding problem, and we feel for those schools that need immediate relief," Riddick said. "In no way do we want to unnecessarily stall solutions to these problems. However, expediency is not always the best solution."

Proposed Changes

The school board authorized the study last September. Four options were presented to the public and feedback obtained through public meetings and online questionnaires before the final staff recommendation was presented to the board in January. The school board can vote to adopt some of these changes, accept them all, or even reject them entirely.

The proposed changes are an attempt to relieve overcrowding at a number of local schools. Colin Powell Elementary, for instance, will have nearly 200 students more then the recommended number during the next school year, according to projection data.

The proposed changes come in two phases. In the first phase, which will take effect during the next school year:

* Clifton Elementary will close and its students will be sent to Fairview, Oak View and Union Mill.
* Bonnie Brae, Brookfield, Bull Run, Cub Run, Deer Park, Eagle View, Fairview, Fairfax Villa, Greenbriar East, Greenbriar West, London Towne, Oak View, Poplar Tree, Providence, Virginia Run and Willow Springs elementary schools will all have their enrollment numbers change.

In phase two, during the 2013-2014 school year, changes at Centreville, Centre Ridge, Colin Powell, Eagle View, Fairfax Villa, Greenbriar East and Union Mill elementary schools will take effect once building construction is complete.

Students in Advanced Academic Programs would also experience some shifts.

The total cost for building construction is over $15 million, which would come from the construction reserve account.

Clifton Supporters Remain Vocal

Many parents had scathing words for the board, and some personal attacks aimed at certain board members, when it came to the subject of Clifton Elementary School closing. Some urged scrapping the study entirely and starting from scratch. Some had suggestions to relieve the overcrowding.

Dwayne Nitz spoke on behalf of the proposed Lewis and Clark charter school, which organizers hope would replace Clifton Elementary if it is closed as planned. The school's location six miles from the overcrowded schools in the area will help relieve the congestion at those schools, and would also serve at-risk students, he said.

Before Monday's hearing, Springfield Supervisor Pat Herrity, long a vocal opponent of closing Clifton Elementary, said that school board members were rushing to close the school before elections in the fall.

"There are a whole slew of unanswered questions related to this boundary study. In my opinion the biggest is: 'Why the rush?' " Herrity wrote in his newsletter. "Why rush kids and teachers into school trailers and inadequate facilities that don’t meet the county’s basic educational specifications?"

Board Responds

After the meeting, some board members said that they would receive criticism no matter what they did, and they would stay accountable to their constituents.

"There's some decisions people aren't going to like and some things that people are going to like," Elizabeth Bradsher, of the Springfield district, said.

"Boundary changes are hard. It is very hard to make changes," said Jane Strauss, of the Dranesville district, noting that in her 18 years on the school board, not one boundary study has been easy. "People value their neighborhood school and that's a good thing."

"We are always rushing to keep up and it comes with the territory," Strauss said of the criticism leveled at the board.

What do you think of the proposed changes? Tell us in the comments box!

If anyone attended the work session could you please put down some simple notes from the meeting. I had no sitter and had to volunteer at school today so there was no way to make it. Thanks in advance.

stayingput Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If anyone attended the work session could you
> please put down some simple notes from the
> meeting. I had no sitter and had to volunteer at
> school today so there was no way to make it.
> Thanks in advance.

From what I heard from an attendee at the meeting:
- interior mods are now coming to Oak View, Virginia Run, Union Mill and Fairview before the 2011 school year starts. That is a change as previously only Fairview was to receive interior mods. Union Mill will still receive additions even after interior mods. No cost data for see new mods was provided
- trailors will be needed at some schools. Board and staff made a point to say no standard classrooms will be held in the new trailers but music and similar classes may.
- Clifton hasn't got a prayer on the charter school alternative as the Board seemed to have no interest in holding the changes until after additions are made on schools
- an amendment to the staff proposal will be made by Cathy Smith to ask that full day K be implemented at schools with half day programs that will be receiving families from full day programs
- Bradsher made vague reference to errant information being dispersed by "a particular supervisor" but failed to name at supervisor or mention what exactly the errant information was that was being distributed to constituents. Brasher only addressed the full board and said she, Smith and Wilson were working to "correct" the bad information that was being distributed. Brasher characterized the information as inaccurate yet did not add detail or indicate what was wrong. Interesting, one would think you may wish to correct the errant information being distributed in a public forum vs in email but we've seen the interest of this board in sharing information.
- Reid, Hone, Moon and Rainey asked most of the questions

So interior mods are now the Kool Aid that FCPS is serving up? These people would make Jim Jones proud.

Someone did a calculation, pretty telling.

If this is about keeping costs down per student, why is UMES getting modifications costing $4,500,000 for 91 students, part of the CES student body being peeled off and sent here?

Get your bubble sheets ready.

Spending $4,500,000 for 91 students equals:

1. a whopping $45,604 per student
2. the School Board's answer not to spend $29,756 per student at CES
3. the dumbest thing you have ever heard
4. all of the above

RogNoVa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read the Post article today on the amount of FOIA
> requests being put forth on the Boundary study and
> on the Clifton closure, plus just happened to
> catch the FCPS board meeting tonight...especially
> heard the testimony by the Schultz couple..who are
> also mentioned in the Post article...some
> thoughts.
>
> Mr and Mrs Schultz I am ticked off over your
> incessant demands for FOIA info and what it is
> costing me as a taxpayer. And based on your
> comments tonight, it appears that you have tried
> Catholic schools, private schools, and now public
> schools...hell, you will never be satisfied,
> regardless of what FCPS does! So shut the hell
> up.
>
> And as for the rest of you nasty folks, especially
> those from Clifton...if you are so ticked off with
> a School Board member, then vote him/her out.
> Better yet, so many of you appear to be real
> "experts" why don't YOU run for office? It is very
> apparent that you think you can do a much better
> job.
>
> Sheesh..enough already!


If the basics are whether we can trust in what the school board is doing, then it matters to all of us in the study. From some of the comments on the WaPost story, it seems like there is a huge missing link. It actually doesnt' sound like much of the important stuff is either right or even in the story at all.
The comments have more than the story. Here's a few:

ffxvoter wrote:
The requestor of the information PAYS FCPS for the FOIA’d documents. It is egregious that this is being portrayed as a financial burden on FCPS! If this is taxing on FCPS staff than perhaps FCPS Administration needs to streamline the procedure/process which they are using to gather the information instead of trying to use it as an excuse to try and skirt transparency. At a time when other agencies (Ex. White House Open Government Initiative) are seeking to become MORE transparent, it is arrogant of FCPS to try and go in the opposite direction.

Further, the POST has now injured its own credibility by (1) not doing full research on a story (2), not checking its facts to make sure they are accurate and (3) appearing to merely be an extension of FCPS PR Department. Shame on you!


Infinimac wrote:
Dear Washington Post Reporter Who Should Have Standards: Who, EXACTLY, is accusing parents of an "indiscriminate witch hunt?" Someone with the word "Hunt" in her name, maybe? Or a board member? This is an OUTRAGEOUS accusation, coming from a school board with zero accountability or a school system administrator with even less!!

Janet Otersen got it right, and I can attest to it: This school administration does not deserve to be trusted. I have seen manipulation of data, spinning of facts, and outright lies from FCPS Gatehouse individuals. Does the public know that almost all the "awards" this system gets come from self-nominations (conducted at taxpayer expense)? Go figure.

That they're spending our money and our trust marching to Richmond claiming victimhood because poor them, they have to abide by the sunshine laws in place for decades to protect the public, just like every other government entity does, is truly illuminating. If I were a taxpayer, I'd be asking, "What are they trying to hide?"

Pay attention, voters! This school system spends 53% of your budget to the tune of $2.2B, more than we give to Egypt in aid every year! There are some amazing reform candidates running for school board who stand for transparency, honesty, and accountability, and who WELCOME public engagement. Find out who they are and vote them in!


ElizabethSchultz wrote:
Several important points of clarification regarding this article:
First of all – my husband and I have FOUR sons - no daughters.
Second – early last fall I sent a single (one) email inquiry to my School Board representative, Elizabeth Bradsher, to pursue transparency in attempting to account Bond Referendum monies totaling $21.75M in taxpayer dollars. Ms. Bradsher refused to answer the inquiry. I have not sent a single formal FOIA request to FCPS, nevermind more than a dozen as attributed in this article.
Third – I am not a plaintiff in any lawsuit against the School Board or FCPS.
Fourth – the FOIA lawsuit has a single plaintiff, NOT many parents.
And, critically, the School Board members emails in the conduct of the public's business with public monies ARE NOT PRIVATE. Virginia statute sets forth that at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government. If the School Board - or any public body - circumvents the law under existing Virginia Code, they should held accountable.

Any government body, including a school board, which endeavours to do the public's business with LESS transparency and LESS accountability, is not seeking to serve their stakeholders with integrity.
Such efforts to reduce government transparency and accountability should wave a red flag to the respective constituents of such government body.
Elizabeth L. Schultz
Springfield District resident
Fairfax County, VA


ProudVoter wrote:
There obviously is a big trust issue between the current Fairfax County School Board & administration, and the parents. The School Board and FCPS management seems to forget that the parents and all County taxpayers have an expectation of high integrity and transparent decision making by their School Board. Instead there have been repeated instances of decisions being made before public hearings even begin, decisions being made that go against the objective facts and data, decisions being made that go against the desires of the parents and taxpayers (the customers), and ugly back room dealing. An enlightened School Board would want to know what has caused this and be asking themselves what they can do to be even more transparent and responsive to the public to try and regain trust.

Voters will have the opportunity to vote in many new School Board members in November. They should exercise their right to do so.


mmkm wrote:
Isn't the real story about what was in those FOIA emails? The reader of this article might understand why there are so many requests if the reporter had revealed a little more about the emails.

FOIA was set up to protect citizens from abuse by government officials. And, abuse is exactly what is revealed in the emails relating to Clifton. This is exactly why we need FOIA.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant - Brandeis

Thomas More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sunshine is the best disinfectant - Brandeis


Speaking of FOIA and sunshine and trying to get more information in understanding what might be going on behind the scenes here, just saw this on another thread....


Subject: URGENT: Breaking News

Fairfax County School Board and Officials Subpoenaed


Thursday, February 17, 2011 - Fairfax County, Virginia – Documenting violations under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as continuing to mount, a fourth count has been added to the recent FOIA case against Fairfax County Public Schools and the Fairfax County School Board. The case, filed today in Fairfax County Circuit Court, was temporarily held due to FCPS’ efforts to enter the case in an evidentiary trial rather than a hearing as motioned by the Petitioner.

The David v. Goliath case centers around accountability demanded by the Petitioner, Jill D. Hill, a Fairfax County resident, for an extensive array of Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Law violations by FCPS and the School Board.

Patton Boggs, LLP, counsel for Hill, and FCPS attorneys will appear in the Court’s calendar control Friday morning, February 18th, to set the trial date. Under Virginia law, FOIA cases are required by statute to be heard in seven (7) calendar days. The statute does not permit exceptions for weekends or holidays.



Among those for whom subpoenas were issued in Fairfax County Circuit Court today are school officials:

§ Dean Tistadt;

§ Paul Regnier;

§ Pam Goddard; and

§ Sara Kolb

In addition, the School Board in its entirety were issued subpoenas:

§ Judith Wilson;

§ Jane K. Strauss;

§ Daniel G. Storck;

§ Kathy L. Smith, Chairman;

§ Patricia S. Reed;

§ James L. Raney;

§ Ilryong Moon;

§ Martina Hone;

§ Stuart D. Gibson;

§ Sandra S. Evans;

§ Brad Center, Vice Chairman; and

§ Elizabeth Torpey Bradsher

If FCPS doesn't care about subpoenas issue to them by the Court, than why should we believe they are going to care about what parents say during a boundary study?

Can you imagine what would happen to you or I as the average taxpayer if we just simply refused to accept subpoenas? Look at this post. What is up with this?

Red Apple Mom
February 19, 2011

Attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools Refuses Service of Subpoenas
Filed under: Education,Fairfax County Public Schools,Advocacy,Parent Teacher Associations (PTA),School Board,FOIA,Open Meetings Law — Red Apple Mom @ 4:02 pm
Tags: Fairfax County Public Schools, SW Boundary Study, Liz Bradsher, Clifton Elementary School, Patton Boggs, Freedom of Information Act (United States), Open Meetings Law, Dean Tistadt, Subpoena, Wisconsin, Pam Goddard, Kathy Smith, Tessie Wilson, Stu Gibson

This just in:

Sources close to Washington, DC law firm Patton Boggs told me this astounding news today: The attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools refused service of the subpoenas issued to the FCPS School Board and top FCPS School officials.

If you read my post yesterday, you know the subpoenas were issued to FCPS over alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law and alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

This same source also told me that Pam Goddard, Executive Assistant and Clerk to the FCPS School Board accepted her subpoena, but refused to accept the subpoenas for the School Board. I find her refusal to accept the subpoenas interesting considering that she is the “Clerk to the School Board” That means she’s the official caretaker of all official records pertaining to the School Board. So it’s quite surprising she refused these documents from the Court. Does this mean Court officials will have to go to School Board members’ homes and work places to serve them their subpoenas in person? Would FCPS attorneys really permit that embarrassment to take place?

As a taxpayer, I’m quite stunned at the FCPS attorney’s refusal to accept the subpoenas. Do some of our School Board officials and FCPS administrative personnel think they are above the law and don’t have to accept court documents when served? Don’t we taxpayers and supporters of our public schools deserve better leadership from these officials?

These events mean Thursday’s trial date has been scrapped and the trial is now set for 10am on March 2nd.

Stay tuned for more details on this developing and changing story.

AvgTaxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If FCPS doesn't care about subpoenas issue to them
> by the Court, than why should we believe they are
> going to care about what parents say during a
> boundary study?
>
> Can you imagine what would happen to you or I as
> the average taxpayer if we just simply refused to
> accept subpoenas? Look at this post. What is up
> with this?
>
> Red Apple Mom
> February 19, 2011
>
> Attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools Refuses
> Service of Subpoenas
> Filed under: Education,Fairfax County Public
> Schools,Advocacy,Parent Teacher Associations
> (PTA),School Board,FOIA,Open Meetings Law — Red
> Apple Mom @ 4:02 pm
> Tags: Fairfax County Public Schools, SW Boundary
> Study, Liz Bradsher, Clifton Elementary School,
> Patton Boggs, Freedom of Information Act (United
> States), Open Meetings Law, Dean Tistadt,
> Subpoena, Wisconsin, Pam Goddard, Kathy Smith,
> Tessie Wilson, Stu Gibson
>
> This just in:
>
> Sources close to Washington, DC law firm Patton
> Boggs told me this astounding news today: The
> attorney for Fairfax County Public Schools refused
> service of the subpoenas issued to the FCPS School
> Board and top FCPS School officials.
>
> If you read my post yesterday, you know the
> subpoenas were issued to FCPS over alleged
> violations of the Open Meetings Law and alleged
> violations of the Freedom of Information Act
> (FOIA).
>
> This same source also told me that Pam Goddard,
> Executive Assistant and Clerk to the FCPS School
> Board accepted her subpoena, but refused to accept
> the subpoenas for the School Board. I find her
> refusal to accept the subpoenas interesting
> considering that she is the “Clerk to the School
> Board” That means she’s the official
> caretaker of all official records pertaining to
> the School Board. So it’s quite surprising she
> refused these documents from the Court. Does this
> mean Court officials will have to go to School
> Board members’ homes and work places to serve
> them their subpoenas in person? Would FCPS
> attorneys really permit that embarrassment to take
> place?
>
> As a taxpayer, I’m quite stunned at the FCPS
> attorney’s refusal to accept the subpoenas. Do
> some of our School Board officials and FCPS
> administrative personnel think they are above the
> law and don’t have to accept court documents
> when served? Don’t we taxpayers and supporters
> of our public schools deserve better leadership
> from these officials?
>
> These events mean Thursday’s trial date has been
> scrapped and the trial is now set for 10am on
> March 2nd.
>
> Stay tuned for more details on this developing and
> changing story.


http://redapplemom.wordpress.com/

AvgTaxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://redapplemom.wordpress.com/

I gather than the woman operating this web site (Catherine Lorenze) wants a School Board slot.

What are her positions? She doesn't seem very bright, but I'd also pick a Wheaten Terrier over Liz Bradsher if those were the choices.

November Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AvgTaxpayer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> I'd also pick a Wheaten Terrier over
> Liz Bradsher if those were the choices.

Starting my day with coffee and a smile!! Thanx November Voter!!

And, no, Lorenze is a friend of a friend ---- not running for the SB.

New documents posted to Board Docs on FCPS.edu show transportation and facilities responses to questions from Board members. Gold star to first person that figures out what is wrong with the transportation data.

Shouldnt amendments be on the web site today? I don't see any, but I'm not sure where I should be looking.

Go under southwest study and see amendment A. It is hidden and you need to search for it.

Please put a link up or say where to look - I am having a devil of a time fidning it - and with a 2 year old running around limited search time so would love the help if possible thanks!

I found Appendix A --but I'm not sure if this is it. It looks to me to be the same as Option E--but I don't live in Southwest area so I am not that sure. As I recall, changes are usually offered as amendments--so there may be something else that I am not finding.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/Public

It's buried in the minutes for Thursday's meeting.

changed name as looks like I am moving schools. Appendix A is the same Staff recommendation that was presented 1/7 if you look at the map, and all they did is say okay we'll try to give FDK to those certain schools and SACC promises to try to help everyone - never mind if you get screwed come fall this will be done and signe and the school board can blame Office For Children since they had OFC said they would try to help everyone. This is a mess.

There may still be amendments. There were lots of them in the South Lakes redistricting. Appendix A is the staff recommendation. The SB members usually offer some type of amendment. I think there were several amendments offered in the Carson Middle School redistricting, as well.

I am totally unaffected by this and I still think it is the worst this SB has ever done. I thought they were deaf and arrogant during South Lakes, but this even goes beyond that. I will say that Liz made it clear during the South Lakes fiasco that she was sympathetic, but that her goal was to get South County Middle built and she needed Stu's vote. ( I don't think she got it, though.)

help? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There may still be amendments. There were lots of
> them in the South Lakes redistricting. Appendix A
> is the staff recommendation. The SB members
> usually offer some type of amendment. I think
> there were several amendments offered in the
> Carson Middle School redistricting, as well.
>
> I am totally unaffected by this and I still think
> it is the worst this SB has ever done. I thought
> they were deaf and arrogant during South Lakes,
> but this even goes beyond that. I will say that
> Liz made it clear during the South Lakes fiasco
> that she was sympathetic, but that her goal was to
> get South County Middle built and she needed Stu's
> vote. ( I don't think she got it, though.)


Thanks for the possible silver lining it made no since that there would be no changes I expected the Fairview 50 to get moved (I am not there though). So I will live with hope for a couple more days. I think for me it is trying to not become cynical about the whole process. I would love to have my way, but if I at least see changes are made for some then at least I feel that someone was heard.

I will say Liz may have done some HORRIBLE stuff, but she was the only one who respnded to my email with a real response regarding my questions. Kathy Smith who prior to this I found pleasant really has left me with a bad impression. Her child went to our schools and she always comes to our PTA and begs us to write to the County Govt Board for more money to the schools an then after doing that again when we asked about the study she was contrite, condsending at times, and just flippant about the whole thing.

I wish they could remember what spark made them first decide to become school board members. Kathy Smith had been a teacher and a parent and PTA president... I don't know I just feel like they have forgotten their purpose. I think they should be going out to bus stops in their areas and really talking to the parents --- instead they distance themselves. I mean personally to recognize that it would make more sense to have a school board meeting in the largest Boundary area when they opened it up to public comments - it could have and should have been done, They seem so mired in the politics and procdures that they can't do things any other way.

http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/faq.pdf

Please read page 80. Great question---terrible answer.

http://reston.patch.com/articles/fec-right-initials-wrong-name

stu is now a columnist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://reston.patch.com/articles/fec-right-initial
> s-wrong-name

When Stu Gibson says that we should all be focused on "student achievement", what he really means to say is "performance on standardized tests." This is at the heart of the boundary study. Our incompetent school board cannot figure out how to make low performing schools better, particularly those in lower income areas, so they just shuffle all the kids around to help diffuse the problem.

stu is now a columnist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://reston.patch.com/articles/fec-right-initial
> s-wrong-name

Gag. Please tell me the folks at the Patch are kidding when they suggest this windbag will be writing a monthly column. One self-serving paean to his own purported accomplishments is one too many.

ReallyFedUp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stu is now a columnist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://reston.patch.com/articles/fec-right-initial
>
> > s-wrong-name
>
> When Stu Gibson says that we should all be focused
> on "student achievement", what he really means to
> say is "performance on standardized tests." This
> is at the heart of the boundary study. Our
> incompetent school board cannot figure out how to
> make low performing schools better, particularly
> those in lower income areas, so they just shuffle
> all the kids around to help diffuse the problem.


I know--I know. Every time I hear something about Stu, it reminds me of how he behaved at the last final boundary hearing (West FFX Cty high school redistricting)..OMFG.

Was that the meeting when he and Kathy sat with backs to the audience? They had some lamebrained reason for not answering questions. Thanks for the memories!

West FFX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was that the meeting when he and Kathy sat with
> backs to the audience? They had some lamebrained
> reason for not answering questions. Thanks for
> the memories!


Yeah something like that. Stu kept going in the other room every time a patron spoke out against the redistricting. Kathy on the other hand weeped--something to do with the amendment being overridden, something to do with the Floris community in her district, I think. It was pathetic.

Wonder how the members will behave during the boundary decision regarding this current boundary study.

stayinput Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please put a link up or say where to look - I am
> having a devil of a time fidning it - and with a 2
> year old running around limited search time so
> would love the help if possible thanks!

Here is the link to the transportation and additional answers document in response to questions from Board members at the Work Session. Note that the transportation averages are actually higher in many cases than the LONGEST bus ride. Someone else pointed that out to me and if this is what FCPS calls accurate data, they need to go back to remedial math class.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8E9GJ243F7C5/$file/SB%20Follow-up%20no.%2011-47-Southwestern%20Boundary%20Study.pdf

Yes Liz, open and transparent indeed. If this is how FCPS Staff does math, no wonder we have an issue with overcrowding/underutilization in school facilities.

Just a taxpayer wrote:

"Here is the link to the transportation and additional answers document in response to questions from Board members at the Work Session. Note that the transportation averages are actually higher in many cases than the LONGEST bus ride. Someone else pointed that out to me and if this is what FCPS calls accurate data, they need to go back to remedial math class.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8E9GJ243F7C5/$file/SB%20Follow-up%20no.%2011-47-Southwestern%20Boundary%20Study.pdf

Yes Liz, open and transparent indeed. If this is how FCPS Staff does math, no wonder we have an issue with overcrowding/underutilization in school facilities."

This is a "must read" document. I find the comparison of adding on to the overcrowded schools vs SW boundary option very interesting. Note how they give a detailed chart on staying in place but not on the other one.

Also, "must read" posted by document reader
"http://www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/southwesternstudy/faq.pdf

Please read page 80. Great question---terrible answer"

The answer on page 80 really is an example of why we are in this mess. Pure arrogance. In my translation: FCPS facilities manages a huge budget, so that proves that we know what we are doing.

can someone tell me when this decision will be final?

Simplify --- The vote is tomorrow 2-24. However, there will be amendments that may affect the timing as well as which students will be moved.

To complicate things even more they will pass something regarding the boundary changes, building improvements, teacher pay, full day kindergarten, etc. then in a week or so they will find out what their budget is and have to re-visit all these items again to make it fit in the budget. Sorry teachers looks like the rug is going to be pulled out from the raises the board recently promised. We'll see what other cuts will be made as well.

Found the proposed amendments--Board Docs-->reg meeting #14 --> view agenda-->scroll to bottom.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS



1. I move to postpone action on the proposed program/attendance area adjustments for the Southwestern Boundary Study until the April 14, 2011, School Board meeting, so that staff can evaluate and apply to their recommendation the updated projection data to be released in March. (Patty Reed)



2. I move to amend the main motion by revising the staff recommendation in Appendix A as follows: the area along Fairfax Station Road west of Fairfax County Parkway (Pickwick Woods, Ten Penny Woods, Innisvale, Station Hills, Popes Head Mill Estates and Station Crossing) to be reassigned from Oak View ES to Bonnie Brae ES, effective for the 2011-2012 school year. (Liz Bradsher)



3. I move to amend the main motion by implementing full-day kindergarten at Virginia Run, Greenbriar West, and Willow Springs Elementary Schools, beginning in the 2011-2012 school year, in order to maintain program offerings for those students moving from schools that currently offer full-day kindergarten, to be funded with $0.5 million from the operating savings that result from closing Clifton Elementary School. (Kathy Smith)

0.5 million will not pay for all day K at three schools. I would imagine that it will require a minimum of 6 new teachers and 6 aides--not to mention figuring out where they are going to find the space. They will also need to supply those classrooms with furniture and materials. Greenbriar West is already popping at the seams--and there is little physical space left outside.

This is an appeasement to Virginia Run for taking the trailer park from Poplar Tree (Kathy's school). She used it to get all day K for her school so now she is moving it out.

It's all smoke and mirrors. And more trailers.

Either way, I ( and many other folks) really appreciate FDK at GBW and elsewhere.

Why do we need an amendment for all day K when the Board already voted for all day K? Could it be that they don't think the Board of Supervisors will approve the budget?

I don't think Reed's amendment will pass. If it would, I don't think Smith and Bradsher would have put forth amendments.

Reed was not at the last boundary vote. Her vote would not have made a difference. They still need another member or two to switch. That should have been Clifton's effort--not to change the whole school board, but to pick off a vote or two. Unfortunately, Clifton is in Bradsher's district and that is usually "hands off". What I can't figure out is why Wilson supported her so strongly. Also, Hone tried to stop the closing and it seems like anything Hone wants is disliked by the "old" school board members: Smith, Gibson, Strauss, Wilson, Center, Storck.

Can someone please explain to me where the savings are from closing CES? According to the info below from the FCPS website, the maintenance and utility costs at CES are less than $300K a year. That leaves staff expenses for the school. Are the current teachers, administration and janitorial staff not going to be employed elsewhere within FCPS when CES closes? Where is this magical $million$ savings from closing CES?????
Attachments:

> 3. I move to amend the main motion by
> implementing full-day kindergarten at Virginia
> Run, Greenbriar West, and Willow Springs
> Elementary Schools, beginning in the 2011-2012
> school year, in order to maintain program
> offerings for those students moving from schools
> that currently offer full-day kindergarten, to be
> funded with $0.5 million from the operating
> savings that result from closing Clifton
> Elementary School. (Kathy Smith)

Which is it? Kathy says one thing, but the FCPS website says another....
Attachments:

think they're saying UMES will not get FDK, since they won't get kids coming from a FDK school until the year after next. this fall, it will just be some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have FDK).

Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK) at least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and it was supposed to have happened by now anyway, and it was trimmed from the budget in the past.

Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway? They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for the proposed changes with the boundary study, and carving up existing classrooms in the buildings into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting room dividers in the classes for special ed and autism?)

Good luck even making your way into the school - traffic getting in and out is bad and will only get worse. wonder how much bus service they will provide for communities being changed over to UMES.

UMES is left out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> think they're saying UMES will not get FDK, since
> they won't get kids coming from a FDK school until
> the year after next. this fall, it will just be
> some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have
> FDK).
>
> Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK) at
> least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and it
> was supposed to have happened by now anyway, and
> it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
>
> Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway?
> They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for
> the proposed changes with the boundary study, and
> carving up existing classrooms in the buildings
> into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting room
> dividers in the classes for special ed and
> autism?)
>
> Good luck even making your way into the school -
> traffic getting in and out is bad and will only
> get worse. wonder how much bus service they will
> provide for communities being changed over to
> UMES.


Don't feel left out. They are promising it to GBW. But if anyone reads the rest of what they say it is dependent on $$. Kathy Smith has come to our PTA and told us before - oh well without you parents emailing the County Government then we are not going to have money to fund the programs you like. So here she makes an ammendment. Then she and the rest of the Board will say - well enough parents didn't write the County Government and the County Government doesn't want to help the schools. The Board is excellent as painting themselfs as blameless victims. The sad part is how many people really believe that because they are "supporting" this full day K thing now it will really happen. Sorry I have become a little more cynical in wacthing and dealing with these individuals through this boundary study. They are all about completing their agenda the best they can with the least amount of parent annoynace. They say the want a parent partnership - but only as long as the parents agree with them. When Kathy Smith started getting questioned about the Boundary study at our GBW PTA meeting - she became very short and contrite. I used to think she truly was trying to listen and represent our area - now I really feel she already has a plan and her goal is just how to sell it to the most people. I hope GBW gets FDK, but I don't believe it will happen. I think she used it to get adminstrators and parents to stop complaining about the Boundary Study, I know she is not the only Board memebr working it either,but she has been the rep for my school and I voted for her. Well I will not vote for her again - even if I get to stay at my school.

Kathy and Stu were like that through every boundary process I have witnessed-from the opening of Carson, to Westfield, to South Lakes. They always say to "write us." They always tell the parents that they have not made up their minds--when they already have. It appears that Liz Bradsher is even more extreme in the prevarication.

Stu's agenda was to get more students in South Lakes--now he is leaving. Liz wanted South County Middle--I guess that wasn't enough. She apparently has political ambitions. I am not sure what Kathy's agenda is. Her name used to be floated around for higher Democratic office, but I haven't heard that lately. Nevertheless, she always plays sweetness and light at the beginning and then does not respond at the end. Janie Strauss just wants to protect her district and keep her voters happy--that's why Langley was left out of South Lakes study, even though her district was on top of South Lakes.

I agree, it's all for show. In the Q&A from people moving to a school w/half day K, they state that they have 1/2 day SAC for K (what they don't mention is how $$ it is, and how hard it is to get in/there's a wait list)

I'd rather UMES not become a mega school. it could go over 1,000, especially if their enrollment/decline projections are off. that's even more critical than getting FDK, in my opinion. I'd like to see those who want it get it though. It's just that they are cramming so many kids into UMES, and they won't even follow through on FDK to boot.

We obviously have no power to convince them to do what's right. I am having a hard time being proud about our schools. my hope is that some higher up in our elected representatives will step in and make them see the horrible errors they've made in judgement and ethics, and help make it right.

Crossposted from the "Jack Dale Must Go" thread . . .

I just felt the need to share it both places.

###


Suggested reading (among others):

"Dumbing Us Down, the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling"
by John Gatto

So, let's see . . . FCPS has "Zero Tolerance" policy and a tome of a "student rules" (SR&R) book that strips most students (AND parents) of their civil rights . . . FCPS gerrymanders its school districts and cannot offer any clear, evidence-based data with studies to back as to why/how this is being done and the LOGIC that should be used . . . the SOL scores (what a JOKE!) may go up but the actual KNOWLEDGE and curiosity for learning plummets . . . teachers are kept on who clearly should be disciplined or terminated for their abusive behavior toward students . . . principals and administration work diligently to avoid Section-504 designations for students with disabilities that may not rise to the level of IEP (or for whom they refuse to grant IEP) . . . FOIA requests for student records are burdening the district . . .

. . . And the homeschool population in FCPS just continues to GROW.

Should NOT be a surprise.

###

Actually, I feel for the teachers. They're the ones on the front line who will have to take it on the chin because parents are mad about all of this (as they should be, as should every homeowner in this county).

Take a look at SOL scores - some aren't doing so well, actually. I saw one ES in the boundary study that had some recent scores on the 3rd gr SOL that just made the state average of 87%.

stayinput Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UMES is left out Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > think they're saying UMES will not get FDK,
> since
> > they won't get kids coming from a FDK school
> until
> > the year after next. this fall, it will just
> be
> > some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have
> > FDK).
> >
> > Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK)
> at
> > least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and
> it
> > was supposed to have happened by now anyway,
> and
> > it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
> >
> > Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway?
> > They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for
> > the proposed changes with the boundary study,
> and
> > carving up existing classrooms in the buildings
> > into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting
> room
> > dividers in the classes for special ed and
> > autism?)
> >
> > Good luck even making your way into the school
> -
> > traffic getting in and out is bad and will only
> > get worse. wonder how much bus service they
> will
> > provide for communities being changed over to
> > UMES.
>
>
> Don't feel left out. They are promising it to GBW.
> But if anyone reads the rest of what they say it
> is dependent on $$. Kathy Smith has come to our
> PTA and told us before - oh well without you
> parents emailing the County Government then we are
> not going to have money to fund the programs you
> like. So here she makes an ammendment. Then she
> and the rest of the Board will say - well enough
> parents didn't write the County Government and the
> County Government doesn't want to help the
> schools. The Board is excellent as painting
> themselfs as blameless victims. The sad part is
> how many people really believe that because they
> are "supporting" this full day K thing now it will
> really happen. Sorry I have become a little more
> cynical in wacthing and dealing with these
> individuals through this boundary study. They are
> all about completing their agenda the best they
> can with the least amount of parent annoynace.
> They say the want a parent partnership - but only
> as long as the parents agree with them. When Kathy
> Smith started getting questioned about the
> Boundary study at our GBW PTA meeting - she became
> very short and contrite. I used to think she truly
> was trying to listen and represent our area - now
> I really feel she already has a plan and her goal
> is just how to sell it to the most people. I hope
> GBW gets FDK, but I don't believe it will happen.
> I think she used it to get adminstrators and
> parents to stop complaining about the Boundary
> Study, I know she is not the only Board memebr
> working it either,but she has been the rep for my
> school and I voted for her. Well I will not vote
> for her again - even if I get to stay at my
> school.


This is pure politics from Kathy Smith. She is going to say she tried to get FDK and then when there isn't enough money she will blame the County Supervisors. That is what they always do. Those of us living in the real world with families have to know what our budget is before making decisions. These people promise to spend money where money that doesn't exist. It's a joke.

UMES is left out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> think they're saying UMES will not get FDK, since
> they won't get kids coming from a FDK school until
> the year after next. this fall, it will just be
> some 100-plus Clifton ES kids (who didn't have
> FDK).
>
> Who knows if it will ever happen anyway (FDK) at
> least for UMES. It's all dependent on $, and it
> was supposed to have happened by now anyway, and
> it was trimmed from the budget in the past.
>
> Where will they even put FDK at UMES, anyway?
> They're already putting in 8 or so trailers for
> the proposed changes with the boundary study, and
> carving up existing classrooms in the buildings
> into smaller sizes. (Maybe they're putting room
> dividers in the classes for special ed and
> autism?)
>
> Good luck even making your way into the school -
> traffic getting in and out is bad and will only
> get worse. wonder how much bus service they will
> provide for communities being changed over to
> UMES.

I think this article pretty much sums up why UMES is getting screwed:

The New Norm: Pay Up for those Who Don't
Red Apple Mom | February 24, 2011 at 10:53 am
http://redapplemom.wordpress.com/


The full-day kindergarten (FDK) debate going on in Fairfax County has highlighted just how inequitable our public education system has become in Fairfax County.

It doesn't matter if it's FDK, school renovations, class size or goodies like the foreign language in elementary schools (FLES) program. A minority of Fairfax County public schools are receiving a majority of our public school resources. Areas like parts of Alexandria, Fairfax Station, McLean, Great Falls, Vienna and Oakton get screwed. Areas like Bailey's Crossroad, parts of Annandale, Mount Vernon, the Route One Corridor and Herndon make out like bandits.

Last year, I complained to my School Board member Jane Strauss about my son's ridiculously large class. (This year his fifth grade class has 36 students!) Her response to me - stated in front of our entire McLean Community Association education committee - was that I should move my family to Bailey's Crossroads where my son would have only 20 students in his class. She even took care to kindly warn me that I would have to learn Spanish in order to speak with new neighbors there. Hey I like Bailey's Crossroad, but I'm kind of tied to a mortgage right now. It's incredulous that Strauss suggests constituents should move because she refuses to address a serious problem. Which is why Jane Strauss - who has served on the board for nearly two decades - needs to go this November!

Here's another example. Just a month ago, the moms heading up the Full-Day Kindergarten effort told me that Board of Supervisor Penny Gross-Mason District- refused to meet with them saying, "My area already has FDK. I don't care about your issue." Wow. She sure cares about our county tax dollars that fund all the programs for her part of the county tbough doesn't she?!

I would have no problem paying slightly more in taxes to the county IF MY CHILDREN RECEIVED THE SAME BASIC PUBLIC EDUCATION SERVICES that others in this county receive. But they don't and that IS a fact! The poor communities in our county will always need additional services and they should get those services - but they shouldn't all the service while the rest of us receive "crumbs"! The pendulum has swung so far out of whack with Fairfax County's Public School's "needs-based" budgeting approach that those who pay the most get the absolute least. Public education should be for everyone - rich and poor. These are kids we are talking about and all kids deserve the basics in a public education - like FDK and decent class sizes containing 26 or fewer students.

I'm becoming convinced that the new norm in Fairfax County Public Schools is now: Pay up for those who don't. We see it with testing fees, athletic fees, FCPS resource allocation and then FCPS' pleas for higher taxes. I believe it has been FCPS' strategy all along to create a major imbalance over this past decade. They gradually redistributed a majority of resources to the less affluent schools so that over time, it is now the new norm. FCPS' hope, I believe, is that the wealthier areas may finally join their call for higher taxes for education.

But here's the problem. Trust. We don't trust that Dr. Dale and FCPS will re-allocate new revenues to our area. In fact, just three weeks ago at one of the School Board budget meetings, FCPS officials stated that they intend to bulk up central administration spending again once the economy returns to normal. Any new dollars should flow to the classroom and teacher first - period!

Here's an additional rub. More affluent areas of the county may get some of the resources they are seeking, but at price in more LOST resources. It's likely we'll see FDK implemented because it is an election year and the School Board wants to play Santa Claus even if only for once. Just last night, Dr. Dale told the Superintendent's Parent Advisory Committee that elementary school principals around the county have agreed to trade other resources in order to help pay for FDK in the remaining 37 schools. A source I trust told me they saw the principals' list and at the top of proposed cuts: Kindergarten classroom aides and aides to special education classes! FLES fans should be relieved. Your program apparently is not on the list.

Let's see if any of these inequities are discussed at tonight's School Board meeting. You can catch it at 7:00pm on Channel 21, watch it live via webstreaming at www.FCPS.edu or attend in person at Luther Jackson Middle School in Falls Church. The meeting should be packed with action as the main discussion concerns the SW Boundary study. 12 of 21 schools participating the school are demanding a halt to the study citing doubts about FCPS' data.

Watch closely to see who sides with Liz Bradsher. And keep an eye out for reformers Patty Reed and Tina Hone. As always, they are great about trying to ensure that the community's concerns are fully and satisfactorily addressed. Here's hoping that Sandy Evans, Ilryong Moon and Jim Rainey flex some muscle on behalf of the public tonight too.

This action alert in from Zero Tolerance Reform: The FCPS School Board will conduct a forum meeting on discipline review tonight at 5:30pm at Luther Jackson Middle School. In response student Nick Stuben's tragic suicide, several Board members are presenting a request to review several aspects of FCPS' discipline process.

WINCE ALERT: Want to see what some school board members really think about the public they claim to serve? Check out this link which has posted several disturbing FOIA'd emails between school board members Liz Bradsher and Tessie Wilson:
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2,430530,515096,page=12#msg-515096http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2,430530,515096,page=12#msg-515096

Badmanagement is right. Not only will Kathy blame the Supervisors, but she will cry at the Board meeting and talk about the "children."

Write the BOS and tell them to save FCPS money for next year with a new board. (I hope.)

Does Sully district have a challenger?