FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if current classes at the time of redistricting are grandfathered in to their school? So if it happens when my youngest is a sophomore, his would be the last incoming class at his school?

With a countywide reboundary they would have to make everyone move right away, there just wouldn’t be the buses to do it any other way.

Likely new boundaries would be announced the summer before the start of school one year and take effect a year later so everyone has time to get used to the idea.

And McDaniel wants this done asap. He was quoted in a recent article as wanting this done for next school year. That’s never gonna happen, but they’ll shoot to get it done in 2025 to implement changes by fall 2026 to give themselves a year to try to shore up their votes for the next election cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if current classes at the time of redistricting are grandfathered in to their school? So if it happens when my youngest is a sophomore, his would be the last incoming class at his school?

With a countywide reboundary they would have to make everyone move right away, there just wouldn’t be the buses to do it any other way.

Likely new boundaries would be announced the summer before the start of school one year and take effect a year later so everyone has time to get used to the idea.

And McDaniel wants this done asap. He was quoted in a recent article as wanting this done for next school year. That’s never gonna happen, but they’ll shoot to get it done in 2025 to implement changes by fall 2026 to give themselves a year to try to shore up their votes for the next election cycle.

There is a long procedure that must be followed and cannot be rushed through just by McDaniel waving his magic wand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if current classes at the time of redistricting are grandfathered in to their school? So if it happens when my youngest is a sophomore, his would be the last incoming class at his school?

With a countywide reboundary they would have to make everyone move right away, there just wouldn’t be the buses to do it any other way.

Likely new boundaries would be announced the summer before the start of school one year and take effect a year later so everyone has time to get used to the idea.

And McDaniel wants this done asap. He was quoted in a recent article as wanting this done for next school year. That’s never gonna happen, but they’ll shoot to get it done in 2025 to implement changes by fall 2026 to give themselves a year to try to shore up their votes for the next election cycle.

There is a long procedure that must be followed and cannot be rushed through just by McDaniel waving his magic wand.

Yes, that’s part of the reason they are changing the boundary policy later this month. The boundary policy change is primarily to facilitate the massive, ill-conceived county wide boundary reset.

Go back a few posts and look at the direct quote from Lady’s newsletter: “Once the policy has been approved by the Board, the next step is operationalizing this new policy.” That is a direct quote from the newsletter.

They are going to move quickly to try to get this through before they have to start taking the hugely unpopular, career-killing votes in 2027.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if current classes at the time of redistricting are grandfathered in to their school? So if it happens when my youngest is a sophomore, his would be the last incoming class at his school?

With a countywide reboundary they would have to make everyone move right away, there just wouldn’t be the buses to do it any other way.

Likely new boundaries would be announced the summer before the start of school one year and take effect a year later so everyone has time to get used to the idea.

And McDaniel wants this done asap. He was quoted in a recent article as wanting this done for next school year. That’s never gonna happen, but they’ll shoot to get it done in 2025 to implement changes by fall 2026 to give themselves a year to try to shore up their votes for the next election cycle.

There is a long procedure that must be followed and cannot be rushed through just by McDaniel waving his magic wand.

Yes, that’s part of the reason they are changing the boundary policy later this month. The boundary policy change is primarily to facilitate the massive, ill-conceived county wide boundary reset.

Go back a few posts and look at the direct quote from Lady’s newsletter: “Once the policy has been approved by the Board, the next step is operationalizing this new policy.” That is a direct quote from the newsletter.

They are going to move quickly to try to get this through before they have to start taking the hugely unpopular, career-killing votes in 2027.

It wasn't that long ago that they killed a proposed boundary study for Glasgow MS that clearly hadn't been thought through very carefully. On the one hand, there was a desire on the part of Ricardy Anderson to reduce the enrollment at Glasgow, but on the other hand, moving kids to other middle schools was going to drive up the FARMS percentage at Glasgow.

These types of trade-offs and challenges will present themselves again and again if they try to push through county-wide changes. Their only hope will be that it will be so pervasively bad in the aggregate that no single bad judgment will cry out for special attention. They want to act like it's 1984 all over again, when county-wide changes were last adopted, but many things have changed since then that will make it much harder to convince parents county-wide changes are a good idea.

One hates to resort to hyperbole, but if this is done wrong it will be the final nail in the coffin for FCPS. You'll have thousands of parents who previously viewed themselves as staunch supporters of FCPS running for the exits and demanding new voucher programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire Langley pyramid area should just secede from Fairfax county as an independent city and stop supporting this bufoonery.

How would they do that? (Hint- they can’t )

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title15.2/subtitleIII/

Where there is political will there is a way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire Langley pyramid area should just secede from Fairfax county as an independent city and stop supporting this bufoonery.

How would they do that? (Hint- they can’t )

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title15.2/subtitleIII/

Where there is political will there is a way.

The moratorium on new towns and cities in Virginia was recently extended to 2032, and Youngkin (who lived in the Langley district) signed the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire Langley pyramid area should just secede from Fairfax county as an independent city and stop supporting this bufoonery.

How would they do that? (Hint- they can’t )

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title15.2/subtitleIII/

Where there is political will there is a way.

The moratorium on new towns and cities in Virginia was recently extended to 2032, and Youngkin (who lived in the Langley district) signed the bill.

What was done can be easily undone. If there was a Republican majority in the Assembly I suspect the moratorium would have been allowed to expire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
One hates to resort to hyperbole, but if this is done wrong it will be the final nail in the coffin for FCPS. You'll have thousands of parents who previously viewed themselves as staunch supporters of FCPS running for the exits and demanding new voucher programs.

The only way they can possibly do it, will be wrong. And I can't wait for the blowback. Vouchers for all here we come!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One hates to resort to hyperbole, but if this is done wrong it will be the final nail in the coffin for FCPS. You'll have thousands of parents who previously viewed themselves as staunch supporters of FCPS running for the exits and demanding new voucher programs.

The only way they can possibly do it, will be wrong. And I can't wait for the blowback. Vouchers for all here we come!

I’m already there. I’ve been a public school supporter all my life, but these efforts have single-handedly turned me into a voucher advocate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire Langley pyramid area should just secede from Fairfax county as an independent city and stop supporting this bufoonery.

How would they do that? (Hint- they can’t )

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title15.2/subtitleIII/

Where there is political will there is a way.

The moratorium on new towns and cities in Virginia was recently extended to 2032, and Youngkin (who lived in the Langley district) signed the bill.

What was done can be easily undone. If there was a Republican majority in the Assembly I suspect the moratorium would have been allowed to expire.

True, but unfortunately the sequencing won’t work. Quite possibly at that point a third of great falls would be going to a different school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if current classes at the time of redistricting are grandfathered in to their school? So if it happens when my youngest is a sophomore, his would be the last incoming class at his school?

With a countywide reboundary they would have to make everyone move right away, there just wouldn’t be the buses to do it any other way.

Likely new boundaries would be announced the summer before the start of school one year and take effect a year later so everyone has time to get used to the idea.

And McDaniel wants this done asap. He was quoted in a recent article as wanting this done for next school year. That’s never gonna happen, but they’ll shoot to get it done in 2025 to implement changes by fall 2026 to give themselves a year to try to shore up their votes for the next election cycle.

There is a long procedure that must be followed and cannot be rushed through just by McDaniel waving his magic wand.

Yes, that’s part of the reason they are changing the boundary policy later this month. The boundary policy change is primarily to facilitate the massive, ill-conceived county wide boundary reset.

Go back a few posts and look at the direct quote from Lady’s newsletter: “Once the policy has been approved by the Board, the next step is operationalizing this new policy.” That is a direct quote from the newsletter.

They are going to move quickly to try to get this through before they have to start taking the hugely unpopular, career-killing votes in 2027.

It wasn't that long ago that they killed a proposed boundary study for Glasgow MS that clearly hadn't been thought through very carefully. On the one hand, there was a desire on the part of Ricardy Anderson to reduce the enrollment at Glasgow, but on the other hand, moving kids to other middle schools was going to drive up the FARMS percentage at Glasgow.

These types of trade-offs and challenges will present themselves again and again if they try to push through county-wide changes. Their only hope will be that it will be so pervasively bad in the aggregate that no single bad judgment will cry out for special attention. They want to act like it's 1984 all over again, when county-wide changes were last adopted, but many things have changed since then that will make it much harder to convince parents county-wide changes are a good idea.

One hates to resort to hyperbole, but if this is done wrong it will be the final nail in the coffin for FCPS. You'll have thousands of parents who previously viewed themselves as staunch supporters of FCPS running for the exits and demanding new voucher programs.

So to summarize, your implication is that FCPS has had staunch support up until now only because thus far FCPS has been willing and able to, for the most part, segregate poor and undesired races into select pyramids while keeping premiere pyramids at high White/Asian percentage. And new policy which disturbs that ratio means the downfall of FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if current classes at the time of redistricting are grandfathered in to their school? So if it happens when my youngest is a sophomore, his would be the last incoming class at his school?

With a countywide reboundary they would have to make everyone move right away, there just wouldn’t be the buses to do it any other way.

Likely new boundaries would be announced the summer before the start of school one year and take effect a year later so everyone has time to get used to the idea.

And McDaniel wants this done asap. He was quoted in a recent article as wanting this done for next school year. That’s never gonna happen, but they’ll shoot to get it done in 2025 to implement changes by fall 2026 to give themselves a year to try to shore up their votes for the next election cycle.

There is a long procedure that must be followed and cannot be rushed through just by McDaniel waving his magic wand.

Yes, that’s part of the reason they are changing the boundary policy later this month. The boundary policy change is primarily to facilitate the massive, ill-conceived county wide boundary reset.

Go back a few posts and look at the direct quote from Lady’s newsletter: “Once the policy has been approved by the Board, the next step is operationalizing this new policy.” That is a direct quote from the newsletter.

They are going to move quickly to try to get this through before they have to start taking the hugely unpopular, career-killing votes in 2027.

It wasn't that long ago that they killed a proposed boundary study for Glasgow MS that clearly hadn't been thought through very carefully. On the one hand, there was a desire on the part of Ricardy Anderson to reduce the enrollment at Glasgow, but on the other hand, moving kids to other middle schools was going to drive up the FARMS percentage at Glasgow.

These types of trade-offs and challenges will present themselves again and again if they try to push through county-wide changes. Their only hope will be that it will be so pervasively bad in the aggregate that no single bad judgment will cry out for special attention. They want to act like it's 1984 all over again, when county-wide changes were last adopted, but many things have changed since then that will make it much harder to convince parents county-wide changes are a good idea.

One hates to resort to hyperbole, but if this is done wrong it will be the final nail in the coffin for FCPS. You'll have thousands of parents who previously viewed themselves as staunch supporters of FCPS running for the exits and demanding new voucher programs.

So to summarize, your implication is that FCPS has had staunch support up until now only because thus far FCPS has been willing and able to, for the most part, segregate poor and undesired races into select pyramids while keeping premiere pyramids at high White/Asian percentage. And new policy which disturbs that ratio means the downfall of FCPS.

You completely miss the point. The implication of the Glasgow situation was that a proposal to reduce overcrowding at that school actually would have had the unintended consequences of further concentrating poverty there.

And it was just illustrative of the types of trade-offs they’ll be making, quite possibly unwittingly, if they barge into changing boundaries. For example they might reduce overcrowding at a HS but in the process increase overcrowding at a MS. They may inadvertently lock themselves into their current AAP model for another decade without really having considered whether they want to scale back on AAP “centers.” And so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if current classes at the time of redistricting are grandfathered in to their school? So if it happens when my youngest is a sophomore, his would be the last incoming class at his school?

With a countywide reboundary they would have to make everyone move right away, there just wouldn’t be the buses to do it any other way.

Likely new boundaries would be announced the summer before the start of school one year and take effect a year later so everyone has time to get used to the idea.

And McDaniel wants this done asap. He was quoted in a recent article as wanting this done for next school year. That’s never gonna happen, but they’ll shoot to get it done in 2025 to implement changes by fall 2026 to give themselves a year to try to shore up their votes for the next election cycle.

There is a long procedure that must be followed and cannot be rushed through just by McDaniel waving his magic wand.

Yes, that’s part of the reason they are changing the boundary policy later this month. The boundary policy change is primarily to facilitate the massive, ill-conceived county wide boundary reset.

Go back a few posts and look at the direct quote from Lady’s newsletter: “Once the policy has been approved by the Board, the next step is operationalizing this new policy.” That is a direct quote from the newsletter.

They are going to move quickly to try to get this through before they have to start taking the hugely unpopular, career-killing votes in 2027.

It wasn't that long ago that they killed a proposed boundary study for Glasgow MS that clearly hadn't been thought through very carefully. On the one hand, there was a desire on the part of Ricardy Anderson to reduce the enrollment at Glasgow, but on the other hand, moving kids to other middle schools was going to drive up the FARMS percentage at Glasgow.

These types of trade-offs and challenges will present themselves again and again if they try to push through county-wide changes. Their only hope will be that it will be so pervasively bad in the aggregate that no single bad judgment will cry out for special attention. They want to act like it's 1984 all over again, when county-wide changes were last adopted, but many things have changed since then that will make it much harder to convince parents county-wide changes are a good idea.

One hates to resort to hyperbole, but if this is done wrong it will be the final nail in the coffin for FCPS. You'll have thousands of parents who previously viewed themselves as staunch supporters of FCPS running for the exits and demanding new voucher programs.

So to summarize, your implication is that FCPS has had staunch support up until now only because thus far FCPS has been willing and able to, for the most part, segregate poor and undesired races into select pyramids while keeping premiere pyramids at high White/Asian percentage. And new policy which disturbs that ratio means the downfall of FCPS.

You completely miss the point. The implication of the Glasgow situation was that a proposal to reduce overcrowding at that school actually would have had the unintended consequences of further concentrating poverty there.

And it was just illustrative of the types of trade-offs they’ll be making, quite possibly unwittingly, if they barge into changing boundaries. For example they might reduce overcrowding at a HS but in the process increase overcrowding at a MS. They may inadvertently lock themselves into their current AAP model for another decade without really having considered whether they want to scale back on AAP “centers.” And so on.

+1. And PP is the only one that believes this is a race war. The rest of us just want our kids in the best schools possible. For her, unless every school has the exact same composition no matter the cost, she’ll claim you’re a racist.

[Anonymous]

It has been something like 30 years since FCPS did a boundary study and reorg, it is needed. I understand that people don’t want to change schools, especially if they are going from a strong school to a school to a weaker school. That doesn’t mean that a boundary study isn’t needed.

There are over-enrolled schools and under-enrolled schools. Boundaries should be adjusted to use the space that we have.

That does not mean that boundaries should be drawn to balance FARMs rates. It does mean that there will be some adjustments because there are high FARMs schools that are under-enrolled near low FARMs schools that are close to capacity or at capacity. Langley is not going to have kids bussed from Lewis. Lewis is not going to have kids bussed from Langley.

I wold prefer that they handle the entire county at once then do the stupid school by school with ripple effects so that it is done with at one time. Then set periodic reviews every 10 years, or something like that.

I think this is also the time to drop IB and make every school AP. Maybe take the empty space in one of the under-enrolled schools and make an IB magnate school for the kids who really want it. You have to be willing to work towards the diploma to attend that magnate school. It would probably increase the number of kids working towards the diploma because they would all be together instead of small numbers at each of the IB schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if current classes at the time of redistricting are grandfathered in to their school? So if it happens when my youngest is a sophomore, his would be the last incoming class at his school?

With a countywide reboundary they would have to make everyone move right away, there just wouldn’t be the buses to do it any other way.

Likely new boundaries would be announced the summer before the start of school one year and take effect a year later so everyone has time to get used to the idea.

And McDaniel wants this done asap. He was quoted in a recent article as wanting this done for next school year. That’s never gonna happen, but they’ll shoot to get it done in 2025 to implement changes by fall 2026 to give themselves a year to try to shore up their votes for the next election cycle.

There is a long procedure that must be followed and cannot be rushed through just by McDaniel waving his magic wand.

Yes, that’s part of the reason they are changing the boundary policy later this month. The boundary policy change is primarily to facilitate the massive, ill-conceived county wide boundary reset.

Go back a few posts and look at the direct quote from Lady’s newsletter: “Once the policy has been approved by the Board, the next step is operationalizing this new policy.” That is a direct quote from the newsletter.

They are going to move quickly to try to get this through before they have to start taking the hugely unpopular, career-killing votes in 2027.

It wasn't that long ago that they killed a proposed boundary study for Glasgow MS that clearly hadn't been thought through very carefully. On the one hand, there was a desire on the part of Ricardy Anderson to reduce the enrollment at Glasgow, but on the other hand, moving kids to other middle schools was going to drive up the FARMS percentage at Glasgow.

These types of trade-offs and challenges will present themselves again and again if they try to push through county-wide changes. Their only hope will be that it will be so pervasively bad in the aggregate that no single bad judgment will cry out for special attention. They want to act like it's 1984 all over again, when county-wide changes were last adopted, but many things have changed since then that will make it much harder to convince parents county-wide changes are a good idea.

One hates to resort to hyperbole, but if this is done wrong it will be the final nail in the coffin for FCPS. You'll have thousands of parents who previously viewed themselves as staunch supporters of FCPS running for the exits and demanding new voucher programs.

So to summarize, your implication is that FCPS has had staunch support up until now only because thus far FCPS has been willing and able to, for the most part, segregate poor and undesired races into select pyramids while keeping premiere pyramids at high White/Asian percentage. And new policy which disturbs that ratio means the downfall of FCPS.

You completely miss the point. The implication of the Glasgow situation was that a proposal to reduce overcrowding at that school actually would have had the unintended consequences of further concentrating poverty there.

And it was just illustrative of the types of trade-offs they’ll be making, quite possibly unwittingly, if they barge into changing boundaries. For example they might reduce overcrowding at a HS but in the process increase overcrowding at a MS. They may inadvertently lock themselves into their current AAP model for another decade without really having considered whether they want to scale back on AAP “centers.” And so on.

+1. And PP is the only one that believes this is a race war. The rest of us just want our kids in the best schools possible. For her, unless every school has the exact same composition no matter the cost, she’ll claim you’re a racist.

In FCPS, there is a 100% correlation between the best schools and the lowest FARMs rates.