FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

They won't need to provide bussing will they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

Well he literally said if you don’t like being assigned to an IB school, the option is to pupil place out. But it’s so much better! Because it requires more reading and writing so you can’t use AI for it LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

Well he literally said if you don’t like being assigned to an IB school, the option is to pupil place out. But it’s so much better! Because it requires more reading and writing so you can’t use AI for it LOL.

Gee if IB is so much better the expansion of West Potomac, an AP school, to 3000 seats was all the more ill-advised on the part of Dunne's predecessors. Guess they should have expanded Mount Vernon to 3000 instead and moved Fort Hunt, Waynewood, and Stratford Landing all to Mount Vernon.

These people haven't a clue what they are doing or saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Dunne drew attention to Whitman in the Sandburg attendance area. Carson isn't in the Oakton attendance area. We all know what happened to the land that should be the Carson HS.

How much money more than AP does IB cost us at Mount Vernon? Fact is it sounds like Dunne only wants the IB there to preserve the tranfer out reason for what might be a boundary change for his West Potomac constituents.

Mount Vernon had 4 IB diplomas for 2022-23 and only 15 senior candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Dunne drew attention to Whitman in the Sandburg attendance area. Carson isn't in the Oakton attendance area. We all know what happened to the land that should be the Carson HS.

How much money more than AP does IB cost us at Mount Vernon? Fact is it sounds like Dunne only wants the IB there to preserve the tranfer out reason for what might be a boundary change for his West Potomac constituents.

Mount Vernon had 4 IB diplomas for 2022-23 and only 15 senior candidates.

How low-performing does an IB program have to be in FCPS before the School Board gets rid of it? This is the type of thing they should be focusing on now (along with the merits of retaining or discarding AAP centers), not boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

They won't need to provide bussing will they?

That doesn’t seem equitable and access to programming is one of their top priorities for the boundary evaluation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

They won't need to provide bussing will they?

That doesn’t seem equitable and access to programming is one of their top priorities for the boundary evaluation.

He mentioned how the South County pyramid has no language immersion elementary schools, but how are they going to fix that? By changing boundaries to send kids from Laurel Hill in Lorton up to Fort Hunt or Rose Hill for Spanish? That doesn’t make sense. If the goal is “equitable access to programming,” and they really want to double down on that as a goal, it seems like they need to start immersion or whatever other programs in other schools and pyramids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

They won't need to provide bussing will they?

That doesn’t seem equitable and access to programming is one of their top priorities for the boundary evaluation.

That's one of the top priorities not the ONLY ONE. Balancing available capacity, reducing split feeders, and minimizing travel time are all Top Priorities. But yes ignore everything else to support your narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

They won't need to provide bussing will they?

That doesn’t seem equitable and access to programming is one of their top priorities for the boundary evaluation.

That's one of the top priorities not the ONLY ONE. Balancing available capacity, reducing split feeders, and minimizing travel time are all Top Priorities. But yes ignore everything else to support your narrative.

I have never been so struck with the "haves" and "have nots" until I started comparing the different resources at our PUBLIC schools

[Anonymous]

IB is a horrible idea to have at schools with a less advanced student population. To really gain the benefit of IB, you have to strongly commit to it throughout high school. It doesn't help with college as far as getting some credits under your belt (important for students who need financial support for college), and colleges don't even see your results until after you've applied and been accepted since they are reviewed by a board in Europe.

With AP classes available at a school like Lewis or Mt. Vernon, students who might not be strong enough in all subjects which is needed for IB, can take 1 or 2 AP classes in their strengths.

IB has got to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

They won't need to provide bussing will they?

That doesn’t seem equitable and access to programming is one of their top priorities for the boundary evaluation.

That's one of the top priorities not the ONLY ONE. Balancing available capacity, reducing split feeders, and minimizing travel time are all Top Priorities. But yes ignore everything else to support your narrative.

I have never been so struck with the "haves" and "have nots" until I started comparing the different resources at our PUBLIC schools

But surely you have to understand that the more you play the equity card, the more people with means will leave the school district.

There is only so far that the county can go before they really start cannibalizing their own tax base. I hope that the school board understands this before it is too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

They won't need to provide bussing will they?

That doesn’t seem equitable and access to programming is one of their top priorities for the boundary evaluation.

That's one of the top priorities not the ONLY ONE. Balancing available capacity, reducing split feeders, and minimizing travel time are all Top Priorities. But yes ignore everything else to support your narrative.

I have never been so struck with the "haves" and "have nots" until I started comparing the different resources at our PUBLIC schools

How so? Class sizes are smaller at poorer schools, and they get more administrators and more resources per student. In some cases they are also get preferential treatment in terms of facilities (example - Justice HS expansion). Are you talking about school resources or family resources?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sat in on Mateo Dunne’s q&a session yesterday. Someone did ask if two or more stated goals of boundary adjustments were in conflict with each other (like filling out all available seats vs. proximity and transportation time) which would be the most important factor and he didn’t really have an answer. Sounds like something the consultants and the board will have to fight about in each situation. He did also say the goal was not to get each school to 100%, but more to 84-94% because that leaves room for future growth or development, or for one or two big class years, and room to have things like extra labs and flexible class spaces if they need it. Also the Fort Hunt attendance island was called out specifically by name so expect that to be shunted off to I’m assuming Mount Vernon Woods.

I don’t think they’re going to take into account much if you get moved from an AP to an IB school. Someone asked about that and the response was basically, IB schools still have some AP classes (he was really pumping up the party line of IB being so great), and if you don’t like it you can pupil place or do dual enrollment.

Seems like he is pulling stuff out of his ass and ignoring things that matter a lot to some parents and kids (like AP vs. IB).

I'd expect nothing more from this group of incompetent bumblers. This really does have the potential to change the political landscape in Fairfax quite a bit in the coming years.

Yes it does. I'm tired of being a sheeple, voting D, and getting taxation without representation. That party line on IB is complete and utter nonsense.

IB is great for some kids but AP is better for most. We moved to escape an IB school and would move again if rezoned to an IB school. Dunne and his colleagues need to stop being so intentionally obtuse.

The boundary exercise is pointless if they don't standardize on AP and language offerings. If they don't they will just make pupil placements explode. They can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

They won't need to provide bussing will they?

That doesn’t seem equitable and access to programming is one of their top priorities for the boundary evaluation.

That's one of the top priorities not the ONLY ONE. Balancing available capacity, reducing split feeders, and minimizing travel time are all Top Priorities. But yes ignore everything else to support your narrative.

I have never been so struck with the "haves" and "have nots" until I started comparing the different resources at our PUBLIC schools

How so? Class sizes are smaller at poorer schools, and they get more administrators and more resources per student. In some cases they are also get preferential treatment in terms of facilities (example - Justice HS expansion). Are you talking about school resources or family resources?

+1. She’s gotta be focused on family resources, which isn’t something that the county can control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wake up babe, new Mateo Dunne email just dropped. Not going to copy the whole thing here because it’s quite long, but specific situations are called out by name in the Mount Vernon district including the Whitman/Sandburg situation and the Halley attendance island. https://www.fcps.edu/aggregator/sources/19?utm_campaign+=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery#

This is what I found interesting:

"Over 100 students who live within walking distance of Mount Vernon Woods ES are assigned to attend Fort Hunt ES. They ride the bus every day past multiple elementary schools to arrive at Fort Hunt ES."

Removing those kids from Fort Hunt eliminates all of their FARMS students and sends them to a high FARMS school, so I don't see that happening.

I don't see how Whitman/Sandburg is solvable without creating more problems. If you give Sandburg to MVSH and Whitman to WPHS, the the walkable neighborhoods to Sandburg (in the Stratford Landing Boundary, across the street from Waynewood, both separated from MVHS by Ft Hunt) then you move more kids to MVHS than MVHS has capacity for. Moving Hollin Meadows to MVHS so Whitman is in the boundary Creates another island unless you move Stratford Landing as well, but then Sandburg outside of its boundaries

The only way to solve the Whitman/Sandburg issue is to build a new school building within the Mount Vernon boundaries. If you swap the schools, Sandburg will still be 100% bused for all the MVHS pyramid students. The building is too far of a walk for anyone who lives within the MVHS boundaries. When my kids were at Whitman, there was definitely a "disconnect" to the school and I think alot of it has to do with its location.

Whitman is where it is located because of a financial decision when Groveton HS and Fort Hunt HS merged to create West Potomac HS. The corresponding middle schools were merged and you had an empty school building. FCPS decided to move Whitman instead of renovate the building it was in (the original Mount Vernon HS on Rt. 1) and rent out the old building. That building is now owned by Fairfax County Government and NOT FCPS. I think that may have happened when Whitman moved back in the 1980s. Personally, I'd love to see Whitman move back to the original MVHS building but that's not going to happen.
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/publicworks/capital-projects/original-mount-vernon-high-school

One way to potentially fix Whitman/Sandburg is to turn MVHS into a secondary school and have both middle schools feed to West Potomac. That would fill MVHS empty seats and keep all their schools in bounds. It would also open up space at Whitman/Sandburg to fulfill Reid’s dream of more 6-8 middle schools.

This would create a less disruptive path to open seats. West Potomac could pick up Mount Eagle and/or Cameron from Edison. Annandale could pick up Bren Mar Park, which is already a part of its pyramid. And then should Lewis close, it could be split between South County and Edison, with Key and Twain feeding to Edison as Reid’s beloved 6-8 feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IB is a horrible idea to have at schools with a less advanced student population. To really gain the benefit of IB, you have to strongly commit to it throughout high school. It doesn't help with college as far as getting some credits under your belt (important for students who need financial support for college), and colleges don't even see your results until after you've applied and been accepted since they are reviewed by a board in Europe.

With AP classes available at a school like Lewis or Mt. Vernon, students who might not be strong enough in all subjects which is needed for IB, can take 1 or 2 AP classes in their strengths.

IB has got to go.

But if you get rid of IB, you lose the ability to pupil place your kid out of that school.