FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At last week’s school board meeting, board members reiterated their desire to pursue a broader, “holistic” approach to boundary changes that could reduce overcrowding across all schools.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2024/03/27/fairfax-county-school-board-puts-glasgow-middle-school-boundary-changes-on-hold/

They didn’t want to appear to give Glasgow favored treatment but most of them haven’t a clue what they are going to run up against if they propose big changes. It’s not 1984.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At last week’s school board meeting, board members reiterated their desire to pursue a broader, “holistic” approach to boundary changes that could reduce overcrowding across all schools.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2024/03/27/fairfax-county-school-board-puts-glasgow-middle-school-boundary-changes-on-hold/

They didn’t want to appear to give Glasgow favored treatment but most of them haven’t a clue what they are going to run up against if they propose big changes. It’s not 1984.

The Board members are all on the same page for a holistic review along with Reid and staff. They aren't going to run up against anything unless some members change their mind and choose to obstruct their motions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At last week’s school board meeting, board members reiterated their desire to pursue a broader, “holistic” approach to boundary changes that could reduce overcrowding across all schools.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2024/03/27/fairfax-county-school-board-puts-glasgow-middle-school-boundary-changes-on-hold/

They didn’t want to appear to give Glasgow favored treatment but most of them haven’t a clue what they are going to run up against if they propose big changes. It’s not 1984.

The Board members are all on the same page for a holistic review along with Reid and staff. They aren't going to run up against anything unless some members change their mind and choose to obstruct their motions.

It’s largely empty blather to talk about a “holistic” review at this point. They aren’t even as far along as the 2015-19 board was back in 2019 and that went nowhere.

[Anonymous]

For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

You don’t even know that things will change all that much. Consider it a wellness check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

You don’t even know that things will change all that much. Consider it a wellness check.

Yes, a phrase like “holistic review” can be like “equity-based lens.” Sounds good yet no one necessarily knows what it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

You don’t even know that things will change all that much. Consider it a wellness check.

Yes, a phrase like “holistic review” can be like “equity-based lens.” Sounds good yet no one necessarily knows what it means.

Why so stressed? It’s not like one school is diverse and another isn’t, right? At worst, there will be tweaks at the edges to alleviate overcrowding now or in the next 15 years. Chill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

+1. And I fear they are going to try to jam it in this year before next year’s CIP comes out showing how incredibly off some of their projections are this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

+1. And I fear they are going to try to jam it in this year before next year’s CIP comes out showing how incredibly off some of their projections are this year.

What if the projections truly are off? Shouldn’t plans be altered then? Plans should be reviewed and adjusted. That’s what planning is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

You don’t even know that things will change all that much. Consider it a wellness check.

Yes, a phrase like “holistic review” can be like “equity-based lens.” Sounds good yet no one necessarily knows what it means.

Why so stressed? It’s not like one school is diverse and another isn’t, right? At worst, there will be tweaks at the edges to alleviate overcrowding now or in the next 15 years. Chill.

Our edges have been tweaked enough already, thanks. Time for them to step up and invest in the neglected schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

You don’t even know that things will change all that much. Consider it a wellness check.

Yes, a phrase like “holistic review” can be like “equity-based lens.” Sounds good yet no one necessarily knows what it means.

Why so stressed? It’s not like one school is diverse and another isn’t, right? At worst, there will be tweaks at the edges to alleviate overcrowding now or in the next 15 years. Chill.

Our edges have been tweaked enough already, thanks. Time for them to step up and invest in the neglected schools.

Neglected schools???

Common sense says, figure out where the boundaries should be, then figure out what to do about buildings accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

+1. And I fear they are going to try to jam it in this year before next year’s CIP comes out showing how incredibly off some of their projections are this year.

What if the projections truly are off? Shouldn’t plans be altered then? Plans should be reviewed and adjusted. That’s what planning is.

They are anything but nimble.

[Anonymous]

They should be updating the renovation queue, not monkeying with the projections and then threatening boundary changes that very few want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the first time in forever, I’m on board with the direction the SB is taking on something. I’m glad they are moving forward with a holistic approach. If they honestly find that a zone needs to change or not, that’s fine as long as they set up transparent evaluation criteria and findings/justifications.

It’s ridiculous for them to think they can just reshuffle kids around from AP schools to IB schools or vice versa, from AAP centers to schools without AAP, from schools with Academy programs to schools without Academy programs, from schools that offer certain foreign languages to schools that don’t offer the same languages, from renovated schools to unrenovated schools, etc.

They’ve given no indication they’ve really thought about any of these factors, and if they try to just shuffle kids around to screw some schools and/or save a few bucks their political careers will quickly be over and they’ll drag down their entire party with them.

+1. And I fear they are going to try to jam it in this year before next year’s CIP comes out showing how incredibly off some of their projections are this year.

What if the projections truly are off? Shouldn’t plans be altered then? Plans should be reviewed and adjusted. That’s what planning is.

If they are going to try this holistic review, which I think is absurd, btw, they owe it to us to at least get the numbers right. The way they calculate the five year projections is opaque at best, and likely error prone as we’ve seen wild fluctuations at many schools lately.

A holistic study without correct numbers is likely to solve nothing and upset a lot of folks for no real gains. A truly unforced error by this board to even talk about it.