FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are never going to have the same classes across all schools because you need to have enough students in each school to offer the class. I know we are looking at SLHS and wondering if the math options will be enough for a kid who is taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade. The IB program is less attractive to us because of how the math is structured and there are fewer STEM electives at SLHS than other schools in the area. SLHS has fewer kids entering with Algebra 1 in 7th grade, there is are fewer kids who are ready for more advanced math so there are fewer options.

And yes, high FARMs schools are going to have fewer kids who are ready for AP or IB classes in high school and so there are fewer class offerings and there are fewer higher level options offered. We are not going to be able to fix that. Dropping IB as a whole will keep more kids at their base school, which should increase the number of students who are in the AP program, allowing for more sections and more class offerings. But even with that, Langley is going to have different courses offered than SLHS.

Honestly, I am fine with that. The classes offered should meet the needs of the students. Offering Dual Enrollment options for kids who are further ahead in the higher FARMs schools can help with the class differences. If kids are staying at their base schools, then there will be more kids in the AP program and things will improve. But if a boundary adjustment and dropping IB means that there are more kids in the high FARMs schools that are participating in the AP program, then that is a good thing.

All of the parents I know at SLHS with kids in IB are pretty happy with the school. All the parents I know at Herndon with kids in the AP track are pretty happy. The schools will do better if the FARMs numbers drop, we saw SLHS improve when the Fox Mill kids were moved to SLHS and that did not add that many kids. I want to say Fox Mill has about 90 kids in each grade level, so adding in about 360 kids but the scores at SLHS jumped a good amount. The number of classes offered increased a good amount. It doesn’t match Langley or Chantilly but it is improved.

But the boundaries need to be updated, it has been too long and they are wonky. We all know that. The people on this board tend to be High SES so people feel like they have to most to lose and that is what we are hearing.

This forum seems to have several people who are at renovated, expanded schools - reasonably comfortable that they won't be the ones redistricted - and wish for others to be redistricted. SLHS may not be Langley, but it isn't Lewis, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are never going to have the same classes across all schools because you need to have enough students in each school to offer the class. I know we are looking at SLHS and wondering if the math options will be enough for a kid who is taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade. The IB program is less attractive to us because of how the math is structured and there are fewer STEM electives at SLHS than other schools in the area. SLHS has fewer kids entering with Algebra 1 in 7th grade, there is are fewer kids who are ready for more advanced math so there are fewer options.

And yes, high FARMs schools are going to have fewer kids who are ready for AP or IB classes in high school and so there are fewer class offerings and there are fewer higher level options offered. We are not going to be able to fix that. Dropping IB as a whole will keep more kids at their base school, which should increase the number of students who are in the AP program, allowing for more sections and more class offerings. But even with that, Langley is going to have different courses offered than SLHS.

Honestly, I am fine with that. The classes offered should meet the needs of the students. Offering Dual Enrollment options for kids who are further ahead in the higher FARMs schools can help with the class differences. If kids are staying at their base schools, then there will be more kids in the AP program and things will improve. But if a boundary adjustment and dropping IB means that there are more kids in the high FARMs schools that are participating in the AP program, then that is a good thing.

All of the parents I know at SLHS with kids in IB are pretty happy with the school. All the parents I know at Herndon with kids in the AP track are pretty happy. The schools will do better if the FARMs numbers drop, we saw SLHS improve when the Fox Mill kids were moved to SLHS and that did not add that many kids. I want to say Fox Mill has about 90 kids in each grade level, so adding in about 360 kids but the scores at SLHS jumped a good amount. The number of classes offered increased a good amount. It doesn’t match Langley or Chantilly but it is improved.

But the boundaries need to be updated, it has been too long and they are wonky. We all know that. The people on this board tend to be High SES so people feel like they have to most to lose and that is what we are hearing.

The boundaries don’t need to be updated, except in rare circumstances. We all know that. (See I can just categorically proclaim a universal truth too.)

Most SJW agitators on this board are just hoping for a small bump in their housing values at the expense of their neighbors.

The ripple effects are real. Move one group and now a different school os over or under crowded so you make adjustments there, rinse and repeat.

And I am tired of people who repeat the “Your school was remodeled” line. No one knows where they will end up. I sure as heck didn’t move into the pyramid that I am in because I thought the school was going to be renovated nor did I vote for the school to be renovated. A renovation did nothing to add the classes and programs that would benefit my kid and I am far more concerned about that.

And the “You want to bump your property value.” My property value has been growing quite nicely in my mid range school pyramid. I don’t need a boundary shift to change that fact. Believe it or not, not everyone is about driving up their property values.

You are picking at the same things with people because the best that you have is that you like your school and you don’t want your kid to move. And that is fine and valid but not a good reason for the county to not look at boundary adjustment. Your posts are dismissive because people don’t agree with you on a policy issue. You don’t want this to happen so you assume that the people who support the idea are all the same people and are all self centered.

Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument.

I don’t think that the boundaries need to be rejiggered in some weird way to balance FARMs rates across the county, we cannot do that. We have areas of the county that are poor and we have areas of the county that are well off and we have a lot in between. But we can readjust seats to fill schools with open seats instead of building additions to schools which cost millions of dollars.

Find a way to use that space, like an IB magnate school or a real vo-tech school or even a few vo-tech schools so that kids who don’t want to go to college have a place to go and learn a trade. Or shift boundaries county wide and see where we can shift the student population to use that space and save money on expansions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are never going to have the same classes across all schools because you need to have enough students in each school to offer the class. I know we are looking at SLHS and wondering if the math options will be enough for a kid who is taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade. The IB program is less attractive to us because of how the math is structured and there are fewer STEM electives at SLHS than other schools in the area. SLHS has fewer kids entering with Algebra 1 in 7th grade, there is are fewer kids who are ready for more advanced math so there are fewer options.

And yes, high FARMs schools are going to have fewer kids who are ready for AP or IB classes in high school and so there are fewer class offerings and there are fewer higher level options offered. We are not going to be able to fix that. Dropping IB as a whole will keep more kids at their base school, which should increase the number of students who are in the AP program, allowing for more sections and more class offerings. But even with that, Langley is going to have different courses offered than SLHS.

Honestly, I am fine with that. The classes offered should meet the needs of the students. Offering Dual Enrollment options for kids who are further ahead in the higher FARMs schools can help with the class differences. If kids are staying at their base schools, then there will be more kids in the AP program and things will improve. But if a boundary adjustment and dropping IB means that there are more kids in the high FARMs schools that are participating in the AP program, then that is a good thing.

All of the parents I know at SLHS with kids in IB are pretty happy with the school. All the parents I know at Herndon with kids in the AP track are pretty happy. The schools will do better if the FARMs numbers drop, we saw SLHS improve when the Fox Mill kids were moved to SLHS and that did not add that many kids. I want to say Fox Mill has about 90 kids in each grade level, so adding in about 360 kids but the scores at SLHS jumped a good amount. The number of classes offered increased a good amount. It doesn’t match Langley or Chantilly but it is improved.

But the boundaries need to be updated, it has been too long and they are wonky. We all know that. The people on this board tend to be High SES so people feel like they have to most to lose and that is what we are hearing.

This forum seems to have several people who are at renovated, expanded schools - reasonably comfortable that they won't be the ones redistricted - and wish for others to be redistricted. SLHS may not be Langley, but it isn't Lewis, either.

And neither of our kids are likely to end up at Lewis. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are never going to have the same classes across all schools because you need to have enough students in each school to offer the class. I know we are looking at SLHS and wondering if the math options will be enough for a kid who is taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade. The IB program is less attractive to us because of how the math is structured and there are fewer STEM electives at SLHS than other schools in the area. SLHS has fewer kids entering with Algebra 1 in 7th grade, there is are fewer kids who are ready for more advanced math so there are fewer options.

And yes, high FARMs schools are going to have fewer kids who are ready for AP or IB classes in high school and so there are fewer class offerings and there are fewer higher level options offered. We are not going to be able to fix that. Dropping IB as a whole will keep more kids at their base school, which should increase the number of students who are in the AP program, allowing for more sections and more class offerings. But even with that, Langley is going to have different courses offered than SLHS.

Honestly, I am fine with that. The classes offered should meet the needs of the students. Offering Dual Enrollment options for kids who are further ahead in the higher FARMs schools can help with the class differences. If kids are staying at their base schools, then there will be more kids in the AP program and things will improve. But if a boundary adjustment and dropping IB means that there are more kids in the high FARMs schools that are participating in the AP program, then that is a good thing.

All of the parents I know at SLHS with kids in IB are pretty happy with the school. All the parents I know at Herndon with kids in the AP track are pretty happy. The schools will do better if the FARMs numbers drop, we saw SLHS improve when the Fox Mill kids were moved to SLHS and that did not add that many kids. I want to say Fox Mill has about 90 kids in each grade level, so adding in about 360 kids but the scores at SLHS jumped a good amount. The number of classes offered increased a good amount. It doesn’t match Langley or Chantilly but it is improved.

But the boundaries need to be updated, it has been too long and they are wonky. We all know that. The people on this board tend to be High SES so people feel like they have to most to lose and that is what we are hearing.

The boundaries don’t need to be updated, except in rare circumstances. We all know that. (See I can just categorically proclaim a universal truth too.)

Most SJW agitators on this board are just hoping for a small bump in their housing values at the expense of their neighbors.

The ripple effects are real. Move one group and now a different school os over or under crowded so you make adjustments there, rinse and repeat.

And I am tired of people who repeat the “Your school was remodeled” line. No one knows where they will end up. I sure as heck didn’t move into the pyramid that I am in because I thought the school was going to be renovated nor did I vote for the school to be renovated. A renovation did nothing to add the classes and programs that would benefit my kid and I am far more concerned about that.

And the “You want to bump your property value.” My property value has been growing quite nicely in my mid range school pyramid. I don’t need a boundary shift to change that fact. Believe it or not, not everyone is about driving up their property values.

You are picking at the same things with people because the best that you have is that you like your school and you don’t want your kid to move. And that is fine and valid but not a good reason for the county to not look at boundary adjustment. Your posts are dismissive because people don’t agree with you on a policy issue. You don’t want this to happen so you assume that the people who support the idea are all the same people and are all self centered.

Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument.

I don’t think that the boundaries need to be rejiggered in some weird way to balance FARMs rates across the county, we cannot do that. We have areas of the county that are poor and we have areas of the county that are well off and we have a lot in between. But we can readjust seats to fill schools with open seats instead of building additions to schools which cost millions of dollars.

Find a way to use that space, like an IB magnate school or a real vo-tech school or even a few vo-tech schools so that kids who don’t want to go to college have a place to go and learn a trade. Or shift boundaries county wide and see where we can shift the student population to use that space and save money on expansions.

“Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument.” Hey pot, I’m kettle, nice to meet you.

And you are addressing many different posters in your rant, not just one. Perhaps you’ll find a more receptive audience at the next tea party convention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are never going to have the same classes across all schools because you need to have enough students in each school to offer the class. I know we are looking at SLHS and wondering if the math options will be enough for a kid who is taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade. The IB program is less attractive to us because of how the math is structured and there are fewer STEM electives at SLHS than other schools in the area. SLHS has fewer kids entering with Algebra 1 in 7th grade, there is are fewer kids who are ready for more advanced math so there are fewer options.

And yes, high FARMs schools are going to have fewer kids who are ready for AP or IB classes in high school and so there are fewer class offerings and there are fewer higher level options offered. We are not going to be able to fix that. Dropping IB as a whole will keep more kids at their base school, which should increase the number of students who are in the AP program, allowing for more sections and more class offerings. But even with that, Langley is going to have different courses offered than SLHS.

Honestly, I am fine with that. The classes offered should meet the needs of the students. Offering Dual Enrollment options for kids who are further ahead in the higher FARMs schools can help with the class differences. If kids are staying at their base schools, then there will be more kids in the AP program and things will improve. But if a boundary adjustment and dropping IB means that there are more kids in the high FARMs schools that are participating in the AP program, then that is a good thing.

All of the parents I know at SLHS with kids in IB are pretty happy with the school. All the parents I know at Herndon with kids in the AP track are pretty happy. The schools will do better if the FARMs numbers drop, we saw SLHS improve when the Fox Mill kids were moved to SLHS and that did not add that many kids. I want to say Fox Mill has about 90 kids in each grade level, so adding in about 360 kids but the scores at SLHS jumped a good amount. The number of classes offered increased a good amount. It doesn’t match Langley or Chantilly but it is improved.

But the boundaries need to be updated, it has been too long and they are wonky. We all know that. The people on this board tend to be High SES so people feel like they have to most to lose and that is what we are hearing.

This forum seems to have several people who are at renovated, expanded schools - reasonably comfortable that they won't be the ones redistricted - and wish for others to be redistricted. SLHS may not be Langley, but it isn't Lewis, either.

And neither of our kids are likely to end up at Lewis. What is your point?

Your vantage point of relative comfort as you encourage steps that may be far more disruptive to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are never going to have the same classes across all schools because you need to have enough students in each school to offer the class. I know we are looking at SLHS and wondering if the math options will be enough for a kid who is taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade. The IB program is less attractive to us because of how the math is structured and there are fewer STEM electives at SLHS than other schools in the area. SLHS has fewer kids entering with Algebra 1 in 7th grade, there is are fewer kids who are ready for more advanced math so there are fewer options.

And yes, high FARMs schools are going to have fewer kids who are ready for AP or IB classes in high school and so there are fewer class offerings and there are fewer higher level options offered. We are not going to be able to fix that. Dropping IB as a whole will keep more kids at their base school, which should increase the number of students who are in the AP program, allowing for more sections and more class offerings. But even with that, Langley is going to have different courses offered than SLHS.

Honestly, I am fine with that. The classes offered should meet the needs of the students. Offering Dual Enrollment options for kids who are further ahead in the higher FARMs schools can help with the class differences. If kids are staying at their base schools, then there will be more kids in the AP program and things will improve. But if a boundary adjustment and dropping IB means that there are more kids in the high FARMs schools that are participating in the AP program, then that is a good thing.

All of the parents I know at SLHS with kids in IB are pretty happy with the school. All the parents I know at Herndon with kids in the AP track are pretty happy. The schools will do better if the FARMs numbers drop, we saw SLHS improve when the Fox Mill kids were moved to SLHS and that did not add that many kids. I want to say Fox Mill has about 90 kids in each grade level, so adding in about 360 kids but the scores at SLHS jumped a good amount. The number of classes offered increased a good amount. It doesn’t match Langley or Chantilly but it is improved.

But the boundaries need to be updated, it has been too long and they are wonky. We all know that. The people on this board tend to be High SES so people feel like they have to most to lose and that is what we are hearing.

The boundaries don’t need to be updated, except in rare circumstances. We all know that. (See I can just categorically proclaim a universal truth too.)

Most SJW agitators on this board are just hoping for a small bump in their housing values at the expense of their neighbors.

The ripple effects are real. Move one group and now a different school os over or under crowded so you make adjustments there, rinse and repeat.

And I am tired of people who repeat the “Your school was remodeled” line. No one knows where they will end up. I sure as heck didn’t move into the pyramid that I am in because I thought the school was going to be renovated nor did I vote for the school to be renovated. A renovation did nothing to add the classes and programs that would benefit my kid and I am far more concerned about that.

And the “You want to bump your property value.” My property value has been growing quite nicely in my mid range school pyramid. I don’t need a boundary shift to change that fact. Believe it or not, not everyone is about driving up their property values.

You are picking at the same things with people because the best that you have is that you like your school and you don’t want your kid to move. And that is fine and valid but not a good reason for the county to not look at boundary adjustment. Your posts are dismissive because people don’t agree with you on a policy issue. You don’t want this to happen so you assume that the people who support the idea are all the same people and are all self centered.

Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument.

I don’t think that the boundaries need to be rejiggered in some weird way to balance FARMs rates across the county, we cannot do that. We have areas of the county that are poor and we have areas of the county that are well off and we have a lot in between. But we can readjust seats to fill schools with open seats instead of building additions to schools which cost millions of dollars.

Find a way to use that space, like an IB magnate school or a real vo-tech school or even a few vo-tech schools so that kids who don’t want to go to college have a place to go and learn a trade. Or shift boundaries county wide and see where we can shift the student population to use that space and save money on expansions.

Is this the same South Lakes lady who enjoys the benefits of the boundary change that benefitted South Lakes at Westfield's expense, the major South Lakes renovation, and the large South Lakes out-of-queue addition, yet says none of that is of much consequence so long as we can save some money now by denying other schools the investments previously made in her school?

Sorry, that's not something too many people will find compelling. You can't give some schools preferential treatment and then pretend all that needs to be done is kick someone else's kids out of their schools. They need a much larger strategic plan before they change boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are never going to have the same classes across all schools because you need to have enough students in each school to offer the class. I know we are looking at SLHS and wondering if the math options will be enough for a kid who is taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade. The IB program is less attractive to us because of how the math is structured and there are fewer STEM electives at SLHS than other schools in the area. SLHS has fewer kids entering with Algebra 1 in 7th grade, there is are fewer kids who are ready for more advanced math so there are fewer options.

And yes, high FARMs schools are going to have fewer kids who are ready for AP or IB classes in high school and so there are fewer class offerings and there are fewer higher level options offered. We are not going to be able to fix that. Dropping IB as a whole will keep more kids at their base school, which should increase the number of students who are in the AP program, allowing for more sections and more class offerings. But even with that, Langley is going to have different courses offered than SLHS.

Honestly, I am fine with that. The classes offered should meet the needs of the students. Offering Dual Enrollment options for kids who are further ahead in the higher FARMs schools can help with the class differences. If kids are staying at their base schools, then there will be more kids in the AP program and things will improve. But if a boundary adjustment and dropping IB means that there are more kids in the high FARMs schools that are participating in the AP program, then that is a good thing.

All of the parents I know at SLHS with kids in IB are pretty happy with the school. All the parents I know at Herndon with kids in the AP track are pretty happy. The schools will do better if the FARMs numbers drop, we saw SLHS improve when the Fox Mill kids were moved to SLHS and that did not add that many kids. I want to say Fox Mill has about 90 kids in each grade level, so adding in about 360 kids but the scores at SLHS jumped a good amount. The number of classes offered increased a good amount. It doesn’t match Langley or Chantilly but it is improved.

But the boundaries need to be updated, it has been too long and they are wonky. We all know that. The people on this board tend to be High SES so people feel like they have to most to lose and that is what we are hearing.

The boundaries don’t need to be updated, except in rare circumstances. We all know that. (See I can just categorically proclaim a universal truth too.)

Most SJW agitators on this board are just hoping for a small bump in their housing values at the expense of their neighbors.

The ripple effects are real. Move one group and now a different school os over or under crowded so you make adjustments there, rinse and repeat.

And I am tired of people who repeat the “Your school was remodeled” line. No one knows where they will end up. I sure as heck didn’t move into the pyramid that I am in because I thought the school was going to be renovated nor did I vote for the school to be renovated. A renovation did nothing to add the classes and programs that would benefit my kid and I am far more concerned about that.

And the “You want to bump your property value.” My property value has been growing quite nicely in my mid range school pyramid. I don’t need a boundary shift to change that fact. Believe it or not, not everyone is about driving up their property values.

You are picking at the same things with people because the best that you have is that you like your school and you don’t want your kid to move. And that is fine and valid but not a good reason for the county to not look at boundary adjustment. Your posts are dismissive because people don’t agree with you on a policy issue. You don’t want this to happen so you assume that the people who support the idea are all the same people and are all self centered.

Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument.

I don’t think that the boundaries need to be rejiggered in some weird way to balance FARMs rates across the county, we cannot do that. We have areas of the county that are poor and we have areas of the county that are well off and we have a lot in between. But we can readjust seats to fill schools with open seats instead of building additions to schools which cost millions of dollars.

Find a way to use that space, like an IB magnate school or a real vo-tech school or even a few vo-tech schools so that kids who don’t want to go to college have a place to go and learn a trade. Or shift boundaries county wide and see where we can shift the student population to use that space and save money on expansions.

“Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument.” Hey pot, I’m kettle, nice to meet you.

And you are addressing many different posters in your rant, not just one. Perhaps you’ll find a more receptive audience at the next tea party convention?

+1. Although I don't think she's a Tea Party type. She's a loyal Democrat who got hers and is happy to be a cheerleader for the new School Board.

[Anonymous]

Today’s work session gets to the point made earlier about how FCPS offers different programming at its schools. Perhaps this is how they standardize curriculum everywhere so there are no programmatic differences among schools. I vote IB off the island- too expensive for too little benefit. Also kill the useless FLES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today’s work session gets to the point made earlier about how FCPS offers different programming at its schools. Perhaps this is how they standardize curriculum everywhere so there are no programmatic differences among schools. I vote IB off the island- too expensive for too little benefit. Also kill the useless FLES.

How does that work? Do you think that there is the cohort at MVHS to offer the same advanced math classes as Chantilly? Likewise, do you think there are enough remedial students at Langley to justify the lower end of MVHS's offerings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today’s work session gets to the point made earlier about how FCPS offers different programming at its schools. Perhaps this is how they standardize curriculum everywhere so there are no programmatic differences among schools. I vote IB off the island- too expensive for too little benefit. Also kill the useless FLES.

Sounds like an easy lift to completely redo all the programming at all the FCPS schools, especially concurrently with a county wide boundary adjustment. What could go wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today’s work session gets to the point made earlier about how FCPS offers different programming at its schools. Perhaps this is how they standardize curriculum everywhere so there are no programmatic differences among schools. I vote IB off the island- too expensive for too little benefit. Also kill the useless FLES.

Sounds like an easy lift to completely redo all the programming at all the FCPS schools, especially concurrently with a county wide boundary adjustment. What could go wrong?

OMG, this is going to be such a disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today’s work session gets to the point made earlier about how FCPS offers different programming at its schools. Perhaps this is how they standardize curriculum everywhere so there are no programmatic differences among schools. I vote IB off the island- too expensive for too little benefit. Also kill the useless FLES.

Sounds like an easy lift to completely redo all the programming at all the FCPS schools, especially concurrently with a county wide boundary adjustment. What could go wrong?

OMG, this is going to be such a disaster.

It’d be funny if it wasn’t going to be so disruptive to so many kids and families in the county. Time to start pushing for vouchers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are never going to have the same classes across all schools because you need to have enough students in each school to offer the class. I know we are looking at SLHS and wondering if the math options will be enough for a kid who is taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade. The IB program is less attractive to us because of how the math is structured and there are fewer STEM electives at SLHS than other schools in the area. SLHS has fewer kids entering with Algebra 1 in 7th grade, there is are fewer kids who are ready for more advanced math so there are fewer options.

And yes, high FARMs schools are going to have fewer kids who are ready for AP or IB classes in high school and so there are fewer class offerings and there are fewer higher level options offered. We are not going to be able to fix that. Dropping IB as a whole will keep more kids at their base school, which should increase the number of students who are in the AP program, allowing for more sections and more class offerings. But even with that, Langley is going to have different courses offered than SLHS.

Honestly, I am fine with that. The classes offered should meet the needs of the students. Offering Dual Enrollment options for kids who are further ahead in the higher FARMs schools can help with the class differences. If kids are staying at their base schools, then there will be more kids in the AP program and things will improve. But if a boundary adjustment and dropping IB means that there are more kids in the high FARMs schools that are participating in the AP program, then that is a good thing.

All of the parents I know at SLHS with kids in IB are pretty happy with the school. All the parents I know at Herndon with kids in the AP track are pretty happy. The schools will do better if the FARMs numbers drop, we saw SLHS improve when the Fox Mill kids were moved to SLHS and that did not add that many kids. I want to say Fox Mill has about 90 kids in each grade level, so adding in about 360 kids but the scores at SLHS jumped a good amount. The number of classes offered increased a good amount. It doesn’t match Langley or Chantilly but it is improved.

But the boundaries need to be updated, it has been too long and they are wonky. We all know that. The people on this board tend to be High SES so people feel like they have to most to lose and that is what we are hearing.

The boundaries don’t need to be updated, except in rare circumstances. We all know that. (See I can just categorically proclaim a universal truth too.)

Most SJW agitators on this board are just hoping for a small bump in their housing values at the expense of their neighbors.

The ripple effects are real. Move one group and now a different school os over or under crowded so you make adjustments there, rinse and repeat.

And I am tired of people who repeat the “Your school was remodeled” line. No one knows where they will end up. I sure as heck didn’t move into the pyramid that I am in because I thought the school was going to be renovated nor did I vote for the school to be renovated. A renovation did nothing to add the classes and programs that would benefit my kid and I am far more concerned about that.

And the “You want to bump your property value.” My property value has been growing quite nicely in my mid range school pyramid. I don’t need a boundary shift to change that fact. Believe it or not, not everyone is about driving up their property values.

You are picking at the same things with people because the best that you have is that you like your school and you don’t want your kid to move. And that is fine and valid but not a good reason for the county to not look at boundary adjustment. Your posts are dismissive because people don’t agree with you on a policy issue. You don’t want this to happen so you assume that the people who support the idea are all the same people and are all self centered.

Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument.

I don’t think that the boundaries need to be rejiggered in some weird way to balance FARMs rates across the county, we cannot do that. We have areas of the county that are poor and we have areas of the county that are well off and we have a lot in between. But we can readjust seats to fill schools with open seats instead of building additions to schools which cost millions of dollars.

Find a way to use that space, like an IB magnate school or a real vo-tech school or even a few vo-tech schools so that kids who don’t want to go to college have a place to go and learn a trade. Or shift boundaries county wide and see where we can shift the student population to use that space and save money on expansions.

“Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument.” Hey pot, I’m kettle, nice to meet you.

And you are addressing many different posters in your rant, not just one. Perhaps you’ll find a more receptive audience at the next tea party convention?

+1. Although I don't think she's a Tea Party type. She's a loyal Democrat who got hers and is happy to be a cheerleader for the new School Board.

You all are hilarious.

I get that McLean needs renovations and have been supportive of renovations.

I am opposed to all expansions when there are open seats around the county that we have not tried to use. I can’t change that others feel differently and fund all construction on the ballot, not my fault.

I would have preferred the Fox Mill kids not be moved from Oak Hill to SLHS but it happened. The kids are doing just fine. Academically they have fewer options, which I am not thrilled with. Most of the kids in the neighborhood are very happy at South Lakes. My friends whose kids transferred from Herndon to South Lakes are happy. My child will be fine if he attends South Lakes. He will be fine at any school he moves to be cause we are involved parents.

FCPS has not adjust boundaries in ages and it is long over due. It will be painful and disruptive and is going to upset a lot of people.

I don’t think they should gerrymander borders so that there is an even level of FARMs kids at all schools, that is not doable. But where there are borders that make sense to adjust, they should adjust.

If there are overcrowded schools after boundaries are redrawn, then expand those schools. I suspect that will not be an issue.

I know people who felt strongly about what high school they wanted their child to attend so they moved after MS. That was a choice they made. Most people stayed put and worked to improve SLHS.

But none of that matters to you because you are focused on one thing and one thing only. Anyone who has a different opinion is dismissed for whatever reason you think you can dismiss them. It doesn’t matter if people acknowledge that there are legit issues and concerns, they are wrong for thinking that it is still something that needs to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are never going to have the same classes across all schools because you need to have enough students in each school to offer the class. I know we are looking at SLHS and wondering if the math options will be enough for a kid who is taking Algebra 1 in 7th grade. The IB program is less attractive to us because of how the math is structured and there are fewer STEM electives at SLHS than other schools in the area. SLHS has fewer kids entering with Algebra 1 in 7th grade, there is are fewer kids who are ready for more advanced math so there are fewer options.

And yes, high FARMs schools are going to have fewer kids who are ready for AP or IB classes in high school and so there are fewer class offerings and there are fewer higher level options offered. We are not going to be able to fix that. Dropping IB as a whole will keep more kids at their base school, which should increase the number of students who are in the AP program, allowing for more sections and more class offerings. But even with that, Langley is going to have different courses offered than SLHS.

Honestly, I am fine with that. The classes offered should meet the needs of the students. Offering Dual Enrollment options for kids who are further ahead in the higher FARMs schools can help with the class differences. If kids are staying at their base schools, then there will be more kids in the AP program and things will improve. But if a boundary adjustment and dropping IB means that there are more kids in the high FARMs schools that are participating in the AP program, then that is a good thing.

All of the parents I know at SLHS with kids in IB are pretty happy with the school. All the parents I know at Herndon with kids in the AP track are pretty happy. The schools will do better if the FARMs numbers drop, we saw SLHS improve when the Fox Mill kids were moved to SLHS and that did not add that many kids. I want to say Fox Mill has about 90 kids in each grade level, so adding in about 360 kids but the scores at SLHS jumped a good amount. The number of classes offered increased a good amount. It doesn’t match Langley or Chantilly but it is improved.

But the boundaries need to be updated, it has been too long and they are wonky. We all know that. The people on this board tend to be High SES so people feel like they have to most to lose and that is what we are hearing.

The boundaries don’t need to be updated, except in rare circumstances. We all know that. (See I can just categorically proclaim a universal truth too.)

Most SJW agitators on this board are just hoping for a small bump in their housing values at the expense of their neighbors.

The ripple effects are real. Move one group and now a different school os over or under crowded so you make adjustments there, rinse and repeat.

And I am tired of people who repeat the “Your school was remodeled” line. No one knows where they will end up. I sure as heck didn’t move into the pyramid that I am in because I thought the school was going to be renovated nor did I vote for the school to be renovated. A renovation did nothing to add the classes and programs that would benefit my kid and I am far more concerned about that.

And the “You want to bump your property value.” My property value has been growing quite nicely in my mid range school pyramid. I don’t need a boundary shift to change that fact. Believe it or not, not everyone is about driving up their property values.

You are picking at the same things with people because the best that you have is that you like your school and you don’t want your kid to move. And that is fine and valid but not a good reason for the county to not look at boundary adjustment. Your posts are dismissive because people don’t agree with you on a policy issue. You don’t want this to happen so you assume that the people who support the idea are all the same people and are all self centered.

Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument.

I don’t think that the boundaries need to be rejiggered in some weird way to balance FARMs rates across the county, we cannot do that. We have areas of the county that are poor and we have areas of the county that are well off and we have a lot in between. But we can readjust seats to fill schools with open seats instead of building additions to schools which cost millions of dollars.

Find a way to use that space, like an IB magnate school or a real vo-tech school or even a few vo-tech schools so that kids who don’t want to go to college have a place to go and learn a trade. Or shift boundaries county wide and see where we can shift the student population to use that space and save money on expansions.

“Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument.” Hey pot, I’m kettle, nice to meet you.

And you are addressing many different posters in your rant, not just one. Perhaps you’ll find a more receptive audience at the next tea party convention?

+1. Although I don't think she's a Tea Party type. She's a loyal Democrat who got hers and is happy to be a cheerleader for the new School Board.

You all are hilarious.

I get that McLean needs renovations and have been supportive of renovations.

I am opposed to all expansions when there are open seats around the county that we have not tried to use. I can’t change that others feel differently and fund all construction on the ballot, not my fault.

I would have preferred the Fox Mill kids not be moved from Oak Hill to SLHS but it happened. The kids are doing just fine. Academically they have fewer options, which I am not thrilled with. Most of the kids in the neighborhood are very happy at South Lakes. My friends whose kids transferred from Herndon to South Lakes are happy. My child will be fine if he attends South Lakes. He will be fine at any school he moves to be cause we are involved parents.

FCPS has not adjust boundaries in ages and it is long over due. It will be painful and disruptive and is going to upset a lot of people.

I don’t think they should gerrymander borders so that there is an even level of FARMs kids at all schools, that is not doable. But where there are borders that make sense to adjust, they should adjust.

If there are overcrowded schools after boundaries are redrawn, then expand those schools. I suspect that will not be an issue.

I know people who felt strongly about what high school they wanted their child to attend so they moved after MS. That was a choice they made. Most people stayed put and worked to improve SLHS.

But none of that matters to you because you are focused on one thing and one thing only. Anyone who has a different opinion is dismissed for whatever reason you think you can dismiss them. It doesn’t matter if people acknowledge that there are legit issues and concerns, they are wrong for thinking that it is still something that needs to happen.

I’m a DP. Remember how you literally just said: “Parroting the same response anytime someone disagrees with you does not strengthen your argument”?

Do you remember how you just said that like an hour ago? In this same thread? Not even trying to hide it. Like not even a little. Just going all in on it.

Hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But I thought all the schools are equal and parents should be happy sending their kids from low farms to high farms because it’ll be an enriching experience for them? Why in the world does anyone think a parent would be okay with sending her kids from a “best school” to one that isn’t, just because the country wants to equatize?

Because they voted for it?

But they didn't. They may have voted for the School Board members who apparently want to ram this through over the next year, but none of them ran on that platform.

They didn't need to explicitly say anything about it. It was and is understood. Worse, while SB members are supposed to be politically neutral, some promote a party on their social media. If you don't understand that one party is for leveling the playing field in all spheres of life, including education, then shame on you. You cannot exclude this at the school system level.