Just because Stu is on a rampage doesn't mean some of the people he lists aren't good. Don't throw the baby out with his dirty bathwater. Take a longer look at Dan Storck's record (especially the vocal support he gives all the right changes during work sessions and the way he constantly seeks to include all voices and advocacy groups in discussion), and at Ryan McElveen and Pat Hyne's statements leading to this election. They are not to be dismissed. I'd even argue the Ilyrong Moon has been on the right side of the votes much of the time (such as healthier high school start times), even if he hasn't taken the lead (though he made a stab at parent notification).

Republican's should not fall into the same trap Democrats have -- voting all GOP just for the sake of it. For that party to be credible on school board issues, it, too, cannot be knee-jerk.

What does everyone say to the idea heard recently to get rid of any party endorsement and leave the parties out of SB elections, as I heard they do in Montgomery County and elsewhere?

Graham refers to Dan Storck's efforts to seek out and include all voices and advocacy groups. I am President of FairfaxCAPS, one of the leading education advocacy organizations in Fairfax County. Our organization has not experienced this sense of welcoming and inclusiveness Graham is referring to in his post. In fact, here is an excerpt from Mr. Storck’s response to FairfaxCAPS endorsement notification, “…I did not respond to the FairfaxCAPS questionnaire nor seek the organization's endorsement… Please make sure that your records reflect this and your organization's members are aware.”

Additionally, Graham refers to the “statements” from other candidates. As members of the public and those in the advocacy community are far too aware, words of encouragement and support are infrequently backed by action or votes of support. To wit, Mr. Moon was approached on many occasions for leadership simply for support on issues important to the children, parents, and voters in Fairfax County. The children, parents, and educators need strong leaders willing to take a leadership role in shaping the vision for educating our children.

FairfaxCAPS (www.FairfaxCAPS.org) posts all candidate responses to our extensive candidate questionnaire. We welcome all voters to become educated about all the school board candidates and encourage voters to consider FairfaxCAPS slate of endorsed candidates for a school board that will represent real and necessary change.

I am lost. Stu says he can't support Elizabeth Schultz {he can't vote for her, so that is kind of meaningless} but he doesn't endorse John Whittman. The reason not to support Schultz is that she won't say something nice about someone supported by a School Board Member who voted to close Clifton Elementary - what?
Is Stu suggesting everyone in Springfield's district just not vote?

House of Burke,

You might notice that I commented favorably on the people I endorsed, all of whom I know personally (most for many years). I do not know John Wittman. If I endorsed him, you would criticize me for supporting someone I don't know, or for supporting someone just because he was endorsed by the Democrats.

I do know Elizabeth Schultz from her many appearances before and e-mails to the school board (as well as other public comments she has made). One need not be "formally introduced" to someone to know their public statements.

Mr. Gibson:
Is it my understanding that if you know someone for years that they get your endorsement but if you don't know them then you aren't comfortable giving your endorsement? Then why don't you just say, 'I know these people so I endorse them; I don't know these people, so I don't'? You say you don't know John Wittman so you can't endorse him. But how well do you know a 24 year old, Ryan McElveen, to endorse him? You say you have formally met and know Elizabeth Schultz, she says you haven't, then you say you haven't and just know her by email? That just sounds fishy.
The old guard who has been around is ok for you to endorse. So is a young kid whose claim to fame is that he is an FCPS grad and his dad is a teacher? How do you 'know' him to offer your endorsement but not know John Wittman who says he has been involved in FCPS vocational programs, committees and that is wife is a teacher for 15 years? You endorse the old guard who votes with you, Smith, Strauss, Storck and your hand picked replacement Pat Hynes, but you won't endorse other colleagues like Sandy Evans and Patty Reed? They are running unopposed and you can't even acknowledge them?
What this article proves is that your endorsements are as they appear on their face - meaningless.

Mr. Rhee,
You and others choose to take my column, break it up into bits, and then attack each bit. I have had lengthy conversations with Mr. McElveen and with Ms. Kaufax, and have heard Ms. Schultz speak and write extensively. I point readers back to the basic premise: school boards in high-achieving districts are led by members with a global focus, with a history of service to schools and childen. They seek the position to serve and improve. Our children would not be well served by single-issue candidates with an axe to grind. This column has sparked a plethora of comments from residents of Clifton and other parts of the county (and from some residents of Hunter MIll District upset at a boundary decision) over specific decisions with which they disagree. Candidates who share those views have demonstrated a level of narrow focus and backward-directed anger that would not bode well for a newly-elected school board seeking to hire a superintendent who is committed to raising student achievement.

P.S. The commentary regarding lack of support for "any individual who has ever said anything good about any School Board member" (who voted to close Clifton) is as incomprehensible as it is errant.
P.P.S. Mr. Gibson's deafening silence regarding my opponent is duly noted.

Elizabeth:

1. We have met and had a conversation of more than 5 words. You even complimented me on something I had said at a meeting. I have heard you speak on a number of occasions, and read things you have written. I certainly know enough about your public statements to appreciate what is motivating you to run, to be concerned about your lack of civility, and to comment on whether those qualities would benefit children in our school system.
2. You completely misunderstood my proposed amendment to the School Board's legislative package, which would allow a future board to decide in 2015 or later to elect its members by staggered terms. That didn't stop you from questioning -- with inflammatory rhetoric -- my motives and proposal on the Vienna Patch. I have posted clarifying information to set the record straight.
3. You refused to support a candidate seeking the endorsement of your party for the school board, claiming that you could not support anyone who had the support of a board member who had voted to close Clifton Elementary School.
4. Your campaign is being advised by a person who does not want to serve on the school board, but will say pretty much anything to help you and others get elected, because she wants to "pull the strings" of those who do serve.
Your record, support, and motivations speak for themselves. I am just telling the public about them.

The compliment that we can progress with innovation- not necessarily more money -was by email, not conversation. Members' thoughts about candidates are wholly irrelevant to any beliefs I hold about this race.
From: Elizabeth Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 2:14AM
To: stuart.gibson@fcps.edu
Cc: JDDale@fcps.edu
Subject: FCPS School Board Retreat follow-up
Stu:
The commentary you provided on Saturday at the School Board retreat was very insightful and probably not easy to make - vis a vis your taking away something from the data, though 'not necessarily what Staff expected' (forgive the paraphrase) with respect to the allocation of PSI funding.
Principals Jackson and Yarborough were thoroughly impressive, as were the advances they have made through staff engagement and revamping approaches where necessary. It was inspiring to hear not only their success stories but also the collective understanding that the acquisition and use of data is a critical factor for navigating toward more such successes.
Your salient observations that staff has made significant in-roads and that directing the use of more money isn't necessarily the formula for success were appreciated.
The fact that data and innovative approaches to the individual characteristics of a school population by engaged staff can yield extraordinary result was an interesting take away.
Thank you for vocalizing your thoughtful observations, even if contrary to those of some colleagues.
Regards,
Elizabeth

Stu says about Elizabeth Schultz "I certainly know enough about your public statements to appreciate what is motivating you to run, to be concerned about your lack of civility, and to comment on whether those qualities would benefit children in our school system" but has never had a conversation with her?
He's concerned about her lack of civility? That's rich.
There is more civility in that e-mail she posted than in any of the posts he has made here.

House of Burke,

Ms. Schultz has made no secret of the fact that she is running because, among other things, she wants to reopen Clifton Elementary School. I take her at her word.

Stu:
What does your latest post have to do with your accusations of lack of civility, in an article laced with incivility, in response to Ms. Schultz's posted e-mail which is nothing but civil?
HB

John,
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of FCDC. Nor have I ever sought to become one.

I thank FairfaxCAPS and Scott Chronister for the endorsement and the exhaustive survey that not only did candidates answer, but they had to review, analyze and digest in order to objectively discern the qualities of candidates they endorsed for the School Board. The FairfaxCAPS survey was by far the most comprehensive of all those presented to the School Board candidates.

We welcome all views, either in this space or in a letter to the editor. Feel free to weigh in.

Sheree,
I simply pointed out Ms. Epstein's OWN position as reported in the Washington Post. Ms. Epstein has said she OPPOSES the "needs-based" staffing formula, which directs more resources to schools that serve children with greater needs. Her opposition to this important initiative simply means that she would spend more on wealthier students, at the expense of needier students. By the way, we already DO spend less per student than 3 years ago, because our funding has dropped while enrollment has grown.

Mr. Gibson - As you yourself know, what is reported is not necessarily fact. I would review Ms. Epstein's own statements to determine her position on the matter.

Sheree,
You don't get to rewrite history either. On the day the School Board reappointed you, about half the volunteers to the committee tendered their resignations, citing your inability to work cooperatively with others. These included many long-time parent advocates for children with special needs.

Mr. Gibson - I do not know what math you are using, but as a School Board member I hope you know that 4 out of 35 members is not half. To refresh your memory of what transpired, perhaps you should review the audio of the meeting: http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/87MH964758A9/$file/4.03+Additional+Appointments.mp3. This is the same meeting at which you claimed I had falsely portrayed myself as a member of the committee for the two years prior because the School Board had failed to vote on my original appointment. While this was news to me, as a private citizen I was unable to publicly respond to your accusation. As you may recall, Tina Hone spoke on my behalf and pointed out that the error was not mine but the Board's. I believed then, as I do now, that your efforts constituted an abuse of the power and authority of the School Board. The citizens of Fairfax County deserve better, and I’m confident that on November 8th they will elect a School Board much different from the one on which you currently serve.

Sheree,
Here are the facts:

1. 1996 - 2010: Number of ACSD Members who resigned due to conduct issues of any other committee members -- NONE

2. 2010: Number of ACSD Members who resigned due to issues concerning your conduct: FOUR.

3. Percentage of volunteer parent School Board appointees to resign following your reappointment, 33%, including the dedicated parent representative from Hunter Mill District.

These facts -- which you do not dispute -- reflect more than your words.

Mr. Gibson, "There you go again." I DO dispute your assessment. Perhaps it's the lingering impact of the recently jettisoned Everyday Math curriculum, but 4 out of 35 isn't 33%. It's 11%. And you left out the facts for 2011: at least four members of the ACSD (including one who has served dutifully for 10 years) resigned because of the conduct of members of the School Board. This long-time member stated in her letter of resignation: "The sad part is, no one is the least bit interested in taking a closer look – no records are compiled, no data is collected, nothing is ever investigated on a deeper level to ascertain whether these individual incidents might represent a real problem at the school or personnel level. What I feel this School Board and this County are currently looking for is a rubber-stamp committee who will say “Yes, we can make this work because . . .” and “We are great because we . . .”; I feel my interests, talents, and limited time would be more effectively utilized elsewhere." Fortunately, the days of rubber-stamping are about to end and we can ensure parents of students with disabilities in FCPS a school board advisory committee that fulfills its six state-mandated functions, not just the one the School Board permits.

During the time period in question I was one of the chairs of the ACSD. I was also one of the members who resigned due to Ms. Brown-Kaplan's behavior. I can say that she was very difficult to work with and a very divisive member of our committee. Much of the time that we would have ordinarily spent working on issues regarding students with disabilities was spent on procedural matters such as the accuracy of minutes. Ms. Brown-Kaplan was very insistent on things being the way she wanted them. I do take great offense with the statement that the ACSD was a rubber stamp committee. As a member for many years I know that the reports we submitted each year contained independent recommendations and were often at odds with the administration. I will also add that if Ms. Brown-Kaplan felt that the committee was merely a rubber stamp committee for the school board and wanted no part of it, then why did she sign in agreement with our reports to the school board each year she was on the committee?

Ms. Fagan, If you had read the post more closely, you would have seen that I was quoting the resignation letter of another member of the committee who usied that term. Also, I stated the committee is required by the School Board to perform only one of its state-mandated functions: "Submit periodic reports and recommendations...to the local school board." I supported that function by participating in and agreeing with the content of the report. (However, the regulations do say reports, so the committee should not be limited to only one.) There are five other functions mandated by the state and producing an annual report does not make up for the failure to fully perform them. Finally, I'm sorry you felt the expectation for accurate minutes was such a burden, but as a state-mandated committee with a public obligation under the VA FOIA, they are necessary.

Ms Brown-Kaplan I do believe that minutes are important, but not at the expense of the entire committees mission. We did meet our mandate and we did fulfill the remaining functions, however obviously not to your liking. You write that we could have submitted more than one report, but I ask how would we do that when so much time was spent taking care of the procedural issues that you introduced - which included adding that our by-laws needed to state we use Roberts Rules of Order when we were already using them. Also, if you found the committee to be so lacking and so ineffective then why did you choose to remain on it for so many years and fight so hard to stay on it this past fall?

Ms. Fagan, I advocated for adoption of Roberts Rules because such a provision is recommended by VDOE in its departmental guidance for these local state-mandated advisory committees. I also know from many years of experience in PTA, that Roberts ensures fairness, equal participation and legitimate outcomes - things which I observed the committee frequently lacked during my years of service. As to whether the ACSD fulfills its state-mandated functions, let’s be clear on what those are and how they are handled. (Continued)

(8VAC20-81-230 Local educational agency administration and governance, D,2):

1. “Advise Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) of needs in the education of children with disabilities” – THE ACSD DOES THIS TO A VERY LIMITED DEGREE AND ONLY VIA THE SCHOOL BOARD’S ANNUAL CHARGE. RATHER THAN PERMITTING THE COMMITTEE TO DISCOVER THE CONCERNS AND ISSUES THAT PARENTS THEMSELVES HAVE IDENTIFIED, THE SCHOOL BOARD DICTATES WHAT AREAS THE ACSD IS TO CONSIDER.

2. “Participate in the development of priorities and strategies for meeting the identified needs of children with disabilities” – THE ACSD IS NOT PERMITTED BY STAFF TO DO THIS.

3. “Submit periodic reports and recommendations regarding the education of children with disabilities to the division superintendent for transmission to the local school board,” [the ACSD bylaws add “and present an annual report of activities to the Fairfax County School Board”] – THIS IS THE ONE STATE-MANDATED FUNCTION ON WHICH THE SCHOOL BOARD FOCUSES AND WHICH TAKES UP THE ENTIRE ANNUAL EFFORT OF THE ACSD.

4. “Assist FCPS in interpreting plans to the community for meeting the special needs of children with disabilities for educational services” – THE ACSD IS NOT PERMITTED BY STAFF TO DO THIS.

(Continued)

5. “Review the policies and procedures for the provision of special education and related services prior to submission to the local school board” – IN 2010, THE STAFF PRESENTED A NEWLY REVISED POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL TO THE ACSD. I SERVED ON AN AD HOC COMMITTEE CHARGED WITH DEVELOPING THE ACSD’S RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT STAFF FORWARDED NONE OF OUR 13 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD WHEN IT CONSIDERED AND ADOPTED THE MANUAL (WHICH OCCURRED UNDER THE "CONSENT AGENDA," MEANING THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION).

6. “Participate in the review of the local school division’s annual plan” [as required by federal law (IDEA)]– THE ACSD IS PERMITTED BY STAFF TO “REVIEW” THE STATE-REQUIRED ANNUAL PLAN PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE SCHOOL BOARD, BUT NOT TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. PARTICIPATE MEANS MORE THAN JUST LOOK IT OVER AND AGREE.

Ms Brown Kaplan - As I said, apparently we did not meet the mandate to YOUR liking. As the co chair for three years you were the only person on the committee who stated to me that you were dissatisfied with how we were fulfilling our mandate. In the years prior to your time on the committee we had a member of the state SEAC on the committee and they felt we were fulfilling our mandate in accordance with the state regulations and, were in fact, more effectual than any other state SEAC. Further, the ACSD did have a place at the table as far as working to improve services for children with disabilities. Members were asked on a regular basis to provide input on issues, programs and plans for students with disabilities. Many members worked collaboratively with staff to do so and were instrumental in developing the plans and programs for children with disabilities. Members sat on panels to choose the special education director, provided input on seclusion and restraint guidelines, worked hand in hand with staff on the special ed conference, ect. We had input on the school board charge and always had at least 2 other committees looking at issues the committee identified. These activities, among others DID meet our mandates. We just didn't do it in the way that YOU wanted.

Again, I ask - if this committee was so ineffectual and the 30+ members who participated regularly merely "puppets" for the FCPS, why did you stay on the committee and fight so hard to remain on it?

Mr. Jones,
I made no comment whatsoever about any candidate's religious views. I commented on Ms. Kendall's POLITICAL view that Biblical creationism should be taught as science. First, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. More importantly, the voters have a right to know if a candidate for School Board believes that children should be taught that the Bible is a science text (in addition to having obvious spiritual and literary merit). In an era of increasing focus on science and technology education, I believe that voters of every faith are attuned to the notion that our students must be taught science as science. And evolution is the bedrock on which virtually every scientific discipline rests.

It's really scary when a candidate for the Fairfax County school board advocates for teaching creation as science. That's a position that would undermine the whole discipline and has no business occupying a moment of instruction. One has to wonder what else such a candidate would do to undermine our education system.

Teaching the Bible as a literary text in schools is highly justified if done in a careful manner not to advocate a religious viewpoint. The book has been an important influence on society and on much that has been written over the centuries. That's not the point. You might as well argue for the elimination of science instruction altogether if you advocate creation as science. Let's just hop back into the Dark Ages.

Ms. Keith,
The first part of your comment is not true. The Hatch Act expressly allows federal employees to belong to political parties and committees. I choose not to.
As for your second comment, I am allowed to attend Democratic party events, but I have not attended endorsement meetings of the kind referred to.

You missed the end of the sentence, Stacey, "I don't know why board members complain about being unfairly attacked - while attacking private citizens."

Mr. Jennings is seriously misinformed about FairfaxCAPS. FairfaxCAPS is an outgrowth of frustrated efforts on the part of local community groups to work with the School Board and FCPS to identify goals and objectives, determine whether redistricting was necessary, and to identify the best criteria to use if it was determined that actions were needed. FairfaxCAPS conducted an exhaustive fact-based data collection and analysis effort that yielded conclusions significantly at odds with those proffered by FCPS. Mr. Jennings' own statement validates one of the primary conclusions resulting from FairfaxCAPS analysis--that FCPS enrollment projections were wrong and that the redistricting would result in SLHS being overcrowded.

Since it was established, FairfaxCAPS has earned many accolades for its accurate and fair budget and data analysis. FairfaxCAPS led the advocacy community in opposing wasteful spending on the Gatehouse II administrative building, supported FAIRGRADE efforts to change the FCPS grading policy, works with SLEEP on transportation issues and school start times and other collaborates with other advocacy efforts. FairfaxCAPS supports candidates that are accountability driven, are committed to maintaining a collaborative relationship with the community, embrace and monitor data in a drive for continuous improvement, and understand the roles of the school board and superintendent and the need for effective collaboration in filling their respective roles.

Sorry, Mr. Chronister, but those of us in Reston who witnessed your organization's efforts can attest to the fact that you were on the wrong side of history in the redistricting effort. Fortunately, you lost that effort.

Your organization appears to me to be a clearinghouse for a minority of parents who feel slighted on their single-issue campaigns. You appear to support candidates who, if elected, would have the result of creating gridlock and distractions on the school board. I much prefer candidates who will make decisions based on reason instead of emotion and who will make the difficult decisions, when necessary, to support the greater good of Fairfax County students.

You deserve praise for the surveys that you collected and posted from the candidates, but the endorsements you made based upon those surveys are highly questionable. For instance, you supported Ms. Linton whose third most important objective on her agenda was to put a stop to redistricting efforts. Really? Who within the Hunter Mill District believes pending redistricting plans to be the third most important issue facing Fairfax County education?

I'm with Mike Jennings. Reston voters should be wary about the advice from FairfaxCAPS.

I'm sorry Mr. Holmquist but FairfaxCaps opposed the SLHS redistricting for many reasons not the least of which was the redistricting of Floris for the 6th(?) or 8th(?) time.

At the time I wrote that adding Floris would put too many kids into SLHS and would lead to the return of trailers in 5 years. I was wrong - the trailers came back in 2 years.

The SLHS process rigged from the beginning with grossly inaccurate population projections and not repeated by subsequent redistricting efforts.

Unfortunately the most recent redistricting of Annandale was a failure because a school with disproprtionately high number of rich white kids (Woodson) became richer and whiter and a school with high percentages of minorities and poor kids became even more minority and more poor.

Thanks, Tessie for making the segregation of FCPS worse.

Mr. Holmquist, your compliment for the FairfaxCAPS questionnaire is very much appreciated. I am particularly thankful that you took the time to read the candidate responses (posted at www.fairfaxcaps.org).

Please re-read Nancy Linton’s response. Her third stated priority for year one of the upcoming term would be to “[stop] any redistricting proposals until we [the School Board] genuinely involve members of the community.” To suggest that Nancy Linton would put a stop to redistricting efforts unfairly mischaracterizes her position.

In the 2007/8 boundary study, FairfaxCAPS was opposed to a flawed rocess that flaunted School Board regulations, ignored community input, and was clearly intended to achieve a predetermined outcome. By that measure, affirmation of the School Board means everyone in Fairfax County and the State of Virginia lost.

Mr. Holmquist, we agree that we need a School Board willing make hard decisions based on reason. Fairfax County cannot afford four more years of the School Board ceding its leadership responsibilities to the Superintendent under the auspices of a “strategic governance model;” a model that has resulted in insular decision-making and stale consensus. FairfaxCAPS is endorsing a slate of candidates that will be willing to ask the difficult questions and make the difficult decisions necessary in these fiscally challenging times to ensure a strong and improving public education for Fairfax County students.

Here is an example of FairfaxCAPS "exhaustive fact-based data collection and analysis" on SLHS and redistricting. Quoting from testimony offerred by FairfaxCAPS in a public forum in January 2008 about how the SLHS IB program was hurting SLHS and, therefore, implying why there should be no redistricting into SLHS (comments which are still posted on their website):

"Has IB helped or hurt South Lakes High School’s enrollment? Unfortunately, the numbers reflect an exodus of South Lakes enrollment during the years of the IB program. Many of those opting out of this school appear to be placing into AP schools. These students appear to be from the demographic the current redistricting is attempting to replace. They are largely non-free and reduced lunch students.
The obvious conclusion is that the IB program may be a large part of the problem rather than the solution of South Lakes continued loss of students."

Of course, what FairfaxCAPS conveniently did NOT point out was other data (appartently missed during their "exhaustive analysis") that I reported in the same public forum concerning high school entries/in-migration rates. Data from FCPS Student Mobility Reports showed that the entry rate at SLHS 2003 to 2007 was typically DOUBLE that of Chantilly, Oakton and Westfields (running 4.5-5% vs 1.8-3%).

It is this kind of selective analysis to support their narrow positions that should cause Restonians to pause when FairfaxCAPS speaks.

Would you please share, in 50 words or less, why Stu's service was "outstanding"? Specifics please.

Not a single word on why Stu's service was "outstanding". Got it.

The silence does speak volumes. Pop in comments from defenders "thank you for your service" with not one who is willing to lay out specifics of what incumbents or exiting members have personally achieved.

HOB, The focus of the article is on the criteria for electing new school board members and which school board candidates would be best for the county. Stu Gibson isn't running. You seem to want to turn this discussion to a referendum on Gibson rather than debate his reasoning for making the endorsements he has. I can turn your question around and ask you why you can't debate the essence of the article and instead spend your comments sniping at Mr. Gibson and his supporters. Are you unable to make an alternative case for the candidates that you endorse? Are you unable to articulate alternative characterisitics that one should look for in a school board member and which candidates meet those characteristics or not?

My views are in line with Stu's on this issue, so I don't have much to add. He's made the case much better than I could, but I can defend his supporters. Their silence in response to your goading may simply indicate a desire to focus on the subject at hand.

Richard, the poster chose to come into the discussion and laud praises on Stu. I merely asked why. No response. If Stu is stumping for votes for his candidates of choice based on nothing more than his subjective feelings and a lot of hurled innuendo, mixed with occasional pop-ins by those singing his praises, it is more than fair and even appropriate to ask why he is supported.
My point is merely that Stu is making choices based on the desires of those he is trying to protect - embattled School Board Members and a Superintendent who are the most tone-deaf body in Fairfax and possibly Virginia.

Kathy - good on ya'. These are perceptive points you make.
Stu - the public is paying attention. The diversions are no longer working.